
Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are - heelhook
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/06/22/uber-isn-problem-taxi-regulations-are/5tBvAe8rcnGFcDYDT0jx3N/story.html
======
gambiting
>>Most notoriously, attaining “The Knowledge” required for a taxi license
involves memorizing hundreds of routes, business locations, and places of
interest throughout the city. Charming, but expensive — and quite unnecessary
in the age of smartphones.

Says a person who has never been to London and doesn't understand the enormous
benefit of intimate knowledge of all the streets of London and how to navigate
them quickly. No smartphone is going to help you there, even the best sat nav
is not as good as simply knowing that if there is a match in the city some
streets are best to be avoided hours before the event. I, for one, support
wholeheartedly the requirement for London drivers to pass this difficult test.

~~~
jmckib
I understand that it's useful for a taxi driver to have this knowledge, but do
we really need the government to impose it as a strict requirement? One could
imagine multiple taxi services that compete on different axes. One service,
competing on price, could have less knowledgeable drivers equipped with GPS
devices. Another service, competing on its drivers' knowledge, would be more
useful for taking you to obscure locations or navigating the streets quickly.

It's like any other industry, really. Can you imagine if short order cooks
were required to have the same encyclopedic knowledge as the chefs in a high
end restaurant? You'd just end up with some very expensive diners.

~~~
PinguTS
There is a thing called: customer protection. This applies for all sorts of
products and services. One of those services is taxi as part of
transportation. Part of this is, that drivers are educated, trust worthy and
the vehicles are in good shape as well as having a minimum insurance in
protection of the customer.

Also if you have 2 or more companies competing over who has the best service,
that is good. But all of them have to provide a minimum quality service.
Especially, for foreigners who don't know anything. For that reason regulation
is required.

That regulation also can go wrong, is a different story. Then, of course, it
has to be fixed.

But Uber (and some others) try to undermine any kind of regulation and so
cutting costs to enable cheaper service.

That is like Food safety regulations. Like there is a new startup, which has
provides a service like Amazon Fresh. It is cheaper by using just peoples
cars, which may have no cooling possibility in their vehicles. Then blaming
the food safety regulations are wrong because they require cooling facilities
for fresh food not putting peoples life at risk.

~~~
Thriptic
> But Uber (and some others) try to undermine any kind of regulation and so
> cutting costs to enable cheaper service.

I can only speak for Cambridge, MA (which this article also mentions), but
Uber has consistently provided a VASTLY superior experience compared to
traditional Cambridge cab companies. Cambridge cabs are ludicrously
overpriced; are frequently poorly maintained and old; have drivers who speak
poor English, talk on the phone during the whole trip, and don't know where
they are going; don't accept credit cards; have overpriced fixed cost routes
to popular destinations (thanks government); sometimes won't even take a fare
unless they judge it's worth their while; and are hard to find.

Contrast this with Uber where the vehicles come to you; the drivers are vetted
and courteous (and can be punished if they are not); the cars are new and
generally nice (I have even been picked up in Mercedes S500s and a BMW 7
series on Uber X, and my friend was once picked up in a Tesla); the payment
process is simple with no bullshit about tipping; the drivers are about as
knowledgeable about locations as traditional Cambridge cabs; and it's CHEAPER.

I don't normally care much about local government affairs, but if Cambridge
tries to protect the inferior cab service by banning Uber, I will be at the
polling stations come next election trying to vote out anyone involved.

~~~
PinguTS
> > But Uber (and some others) try to undermine any kind of regulation and so
> cutting costs to enable cheaper service.

> I can only speak for Cambridge, MA (which this article also mentions), but
> Uber has consistently provided a VASTLY superior experience compared to
> traditional Cambridge cab companies. Cambridge cabs are ludicrously
> overpriced; are frequently poorly maintained and old; have drivers who speak
> poor English, talk on the phone during the whole trip, and don't know where
> they are going; don't accept credit cards; have overpriced fixed cost routes
> to popular destinations (thanks government); sometimes won't even take a
> fare unless they judge it's worth their while; and are hard to find.

You have read:

> > That regulation also can go wrong, is a different story. Then, of course,
> it has to be fixed.

Here in Germany, about 60% of the taxi market is having a Mercedes E-Class
model. Taxi cars are required to have a yearly inspection regarding road
safety. Drivers need the have a permit, to allow passenger transportation. You
can easily loose this permit on any kind of wrong behavior in terms of not
following road safety rules. The taxi driver is required to execute any
driving request within city limits (coverage). They are allows to reject you
only under very strict requirements like if they could argue on personal
safety. You, as a passenger, can blame anybody in terms of customer
satisfaction. But, of course, if you don't blame, don't expect things to
change by itself. Basically, the same applies to most countries I have been,
like almost all over (western) Europe, Japan. Of course, quality differs from
city to city. In Milano, IT, I have been driven by taxi driver over red light.
But that is how Italian drivers drive in some parts of Italy. It is their
mentality. In Spain the taxis are a bit messier then in German. But that also
applies for rentals in Spain. They also have their scratches and dents. The
experience in London - also mentioned in that article - superior, like in most
parts of England.

That said, if your regulations are shitty, don't blame the government, because
_YOU_ elected the government. So get active to change things.

------
forgottenpass
_Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are_

Can't it be both? Because I'm pretty sure it's both.

------
splynch
While i agree with the premise that many taxi regulations are outdated, this
article seems to be either poorly informed, or so selective in its
representation that it borders on PR, not independent journalism or OP-ED.

Using london as an example of how things are broken is a terrible choice, and
great example of how terrible this article is. London routinely ranks number
one in the world in customer and tourist satisfaction for taxis. As someone
who lives here, i think Uber has its place, but the taxi system is akin to a
public good that needs regulation. The barriers to entry and designed to
prevent abuse to the privileges that come with being licensed taxi. As a
rider, the most important privileges to me are the ability to use bus lanes,
and that i can hail a cab anywhere, anytime, knowing that the vehicle and
driver will be safe. Without regulation, its impossible to obtain that
standard.

It would be much more helpful to start with an informed and complete view of
the situation (which varies in every city), than build a straw man from which
the author argues for a complete reform in governance and regulation in all
marketplaces(really? thats the point here?)

------
AndrewDucker
I have no problem with regulation. I object to artificial limitation.

If you want to set minimum standards for taxi drivers, to ensure the safety of
drivers, I am absolutely fine with that.

But anyone who wants to take the test should be able to, and there should be
no artificial limit on the numbers.

~~~
_delirium
One interesting aspect of limiting taxi numbers is that, as far as I
understand the history, the first instance of doing so was imposed on taxi
drivers by the public, rather than imposed _by_ taxi drivers for guild-type
reasons. London passed (one of?) the first taxi-regulation laws in the mid
17th century in response to popular outcry about the rapidly multiplying and
unregulated hackney carriage operators; the law tried to bring order to the
sector by both regulating the equipment & drivers, and putting a limit on the
number that could enter the city.

~~~
001sky
This is a fascinating piece of historical context. Regulation has a demand
side, nut just a supply side.

Worth keeping in mind.

Likewise, the public tends to demand regulation when the cognitive overhead is
prohibitive for an individual,[1] bur more economic at scale by a neutral
party. The latter is especially efficient ex ante as opposed to ad hoc.

Again, there are multiple views on what is rational, light and efficient
depending only on abstraction and completeness.

[1] Eg, when faced with too much choice, under too small a timeframe, with
opaque or imperfect information, and costly information processing techniques.

------
alkonaut
Of course regulation is needed. Insurance, car-standard, driver skill, all of
that has to be known by the customer merely by the fact that you are stepping
into a taxi.

Can there be too much regulation, too archaic? Sure, but I can't see how that
motivates sidestepping it entirely.

In Stockholm, taxis (normal ones) are regulated in terms of insurance etc. but
unlike most other cities, taxi prices are not regulated. This hasn't meant
lower prices through healthy competition but rather hundreds of scam companies
charging 10x the fares of the 2-3 largest companies that have 95% of the
market. I miss the days of more regulation, but won't use Uber merely because
they don't guarantee union wages etc like the other companies do.

~~~
jmckib
> I miss the days of more regulation, but won't use Uber merely because they
> don't guarantee union wages etc like the other companies do.

This raises the question, do you refuse to use any service that doesn't
guarantee union wages? If so, picking up an econ textbook will pay for itself
in no time.

~~~
alkonaut
It's hard to trace products through the entire chain of production, but yes,
in Sweden it's quite hard to buy products and services produced without the
union setting the wages (there are no minimum wages set by law, only unions,
and the union negotiates wages also for non-union employees). It might be
under the headline "Scandinavian model" of that econ textbook.

~~~
jmckib
Ah, sorry to knock your country of residence, perhaps unions work differently
in Sweden. In the USA, unions use their monopoly power to push wages above the
competitive rate, at the expense of consumers, the unemployed, and nonunion
workers. Imagine if you were looking for your first job, and you were only
allowed to be employed at union rates. It would not be easy to convince an
employer to hire you. Perhaps that's why so many youth in Sweden are
unemployed?

Also, in the US, I have the freedom to negotiate my own wages, rather than
having them negotiated for me by a union over which I have no control. This
means that if I work harder or smarter I will earn more. Personally, I like
having control over my own destiny in this way, and society at large reaps the
benefits of more motivated and productive workers.

~~~
alkonaut
If wages were left to market mechanisms, there would be no need for a set
minimum wage. The fact that there is a minimum wage, and that many earn just
that, is a clear indication that the market price of labor isn't negotiated
between parties of equal strength.

To be clear: regardless of who sets the minimum wage, there is a minimum wage,
and you aren't free to take a job under that level. To be honest, it would
seem easier to "control" the union of which you are a member, than to adjust
the minimum wage. It's just two organizations where one (congress/parliament)
feels larger and further away.

A huge drawback of a single minimum wage (not differing between different
parts of the labor market) is that it will spel trouble for companies when
businesses on different parts of the cycle would be treated the same. As an
example, here companies relying on export such as truck makers are hugely
sensitive to drops in global economy, and unions will accept frozen wages to
limit layoffs as soon as bad times hit, which it does early in the cycle.
Meanwhile service jobs or the public sector may be at a completely different
point in the economy cycle, with perhaps 1-2 years before bad times hit. To
use the same wages in both parts of the labor market would be a rather blunt
solution.

~~~
jmckib
I agree with you that a minimum wage can be beneficial in industries where
wages are not negotiated between parties of equal strength, for example, the
giant Walmart that employs half the people in town. In this case, economic
models show that a minimum wage could actually increase employment by pushing
wages closer to what the competitive wage would be.

However, I'd argue that in many (if not most) industries this is not the case.
In fast-food and software, for example, the workers are free to move between
employers at will, giving the workers significant power to negotiate.

I remain skeptical that governments (or unions) are smart enough to set the
correct minimum wage without going under or overboard, which would hurt the
unemployed and consumers. A better solution, I think, is a basic income system
that ensures nobody is in poverty.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income)

~~~
geon
> In fast-food and software, for example, the workers are free to move between
> employers at will, giving the workers significant power to negotiate.

In jobs like these, few employees tend to be unionized. I have seen strong
unions modtly in manufacturing, health care and such.

------
yeureka
I am not a fan of the medallion system, but Uber does seem to impact the
businesses of traditional, local cab drivers while raking in profits on a
global scale.

It looks like a perfect middle-class job destroying operation that centralizes
profits in one multinational company.

As someone put it, those with the more powerful computers will win the
economic spoils.

~~~
thret
As someone who regularly uses taxis in Melbourne, I don't care if it destroys
the lives of taxi drivers. That's just another perk of switching to uber in my
opinion.

~~~
girvo
And as someone who uses them on the Gold Coast and in Brisbane, I'm right
there with you. A corrupt industry, where the drivers are being completely
screwed over as-is, and a few people at the top rake in all the money...
basically, the same as Uber, only Uber is cheaper and has nicer cars.

------
Argorak
The article concentrates on aspects that are certainly archaic - the
expectancy that a taxi driver knows every street in a city. On the other hand,
it totally ignores the benefits of the regulation: the client can have
normalized expectations over all businesses.

E.g. in germany, your insurance status if an Uber car crashes is unknown - it
depends whether the driver is insured. On the other hand, it is clearly
regulated what happens when a registered taxi crashes down to what fees you
have (or do not have) to pay.

I do agree that the regulation is probably outdated, but many of the aspects
make sense if you see a Taxi network as an important piece of infrastructure.

~~~
lukasm
Is that really a problem? If he's not insured you're just gonna sue him or
Uber.

~~~
gambiting
Suing takes time, and even if you succeed the person/company might not be able
to pay. Insurance companies pay out immediately if there are medical bills to
pay.

~~~
lukasm
We're talking Germany here. Free healthcare.

~~~
PinguTS
That means, the public should pay for one companies profit?

~~~
Argorak
No, public healthcare makes sure you get on your foot again an then tries to
get their money back as any other insurance would.

So, the public makes sure the damage of you being hurt, unable to work and
maybe turning out to be a case for social security because of being maltreated
is avoided.

------
DanielBMarkham
I love the idea of rating services and customers as each business transaction
happens. This allows both sides to quickly weed out bad actors.

The more I see services like Ebay, AirBnB, Uber, Lyft, and so forth operate,
the more I'm amazed at how much former regulation can be replaced with better
information for all concerned.

------
001sky
Taxi cabs are just one of the professions suffering from the problem of
competition being in conflict with professional standards (ie, self-
regulation). The only option that will be fully serviceable remains government
regulation, but it will need to take on a new format.

~~~
Schwoisser
How do you know? Is there a study that shows cabs need government regulation.

~~~
001sky
If you're imagination needs broadening... se, eg

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7948931](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7948931)

or the many parallels to

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7935819](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7935819)

~~~
Schwoisser
The first one is just promotion of mercantilism and the second seems more like
obscurantism. Just use fancy words to hide the fallacy. Trust can be build by
simple rating system and private certifications with mostly better standarts.
The taxi regulations benefit mainly professionals at the cost of society as a
whole because it cripples competition and that leads to higher costs for the
consumers. I would like to have cheaper taxis at the expense of some security.
Others could just go with a certificated taxi company.

------
victor27
I spent a week in Paris.

I felt cheated _every time_ I took a regular cab. The meter could be set to
various modes (L1- Day in City, L2- Evening in City / Suburb, L3 - Late
nights, etc.) and I was never sure if it was on the correct mode. Also, the
drivers were rude and acted as if they were doing me a favor.

Uber although slightly more expensive, was dramatically better. The drivers
were polite, helpful and I never got scammed on the charge. Moreover, I didn't
have to deal with foreign currency coins and notes.

------
mrweasel
Maybe it's just that it's not really an issue where I live, but what problem
is Uber trying to solve?

The main issue is getting a taxi in really small towns in the middle of
nowhere, but it seems unlikely that Uber would have someone in these places,
simply because there isn't really a demand.

I find it really hard to see Uber as anything but a taxi company that tries to
underbid the competition by not following the same rules as everyone else.

------
sharemywin
"The reason Uber could be expensive is because you're not just paying for the
car — you're paying for the other dude in the car," Kalanick said. "When
there's no other dude in the car, the cost of taking an Uber anywhere becomes
cheaper than owning a vehicle. So the magic there is, you basically bring the
cost below the cost of ownership for everybody, and then car ownership goes
away."

------
jheriko
its amazing how so many individuals can manage all this bureaucracy just
fine... but trendy web startups can not.

srsly. its embarassing.

------
adultSwim
Who doesn't love a gypsy cab?

