
Uber, Maker of Summon-a-Car App, Wins in Washington - iProject
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/uber-vs-washington-dc/
======
pfedor
This is very disappointing. I hoped that the government would treat its duty
to protect me from cheap car services more seriously.

~~~
saurik
I realize you are joking, but the concern really is that cab companies are
something that consumers are trusting their lives with, and often in
situations before they can evaluate trustworthiness or history, if not of
entire companies then certainly of individual drivers. There are extensive
regulations that have thereby been placed on such companies over the years
related to vehicle maintenance, specialized insurance, and traffic
organization. Uber believes that none of this should apply to them because
they are being "disruptive" (as if that is somehow itself a benefit for which
we should be optimizing as a society).

~~~
buyx
We don't miss regulation until it's gone. The apartheid government, in its
dying days, decided to promote free-marketism and it deregulated the minibus
taxi sector, thinking that each driver would run a one-man business. What
really happened is that those with access to capital bought fleets of
minibuses and South Africas cities became a nightmare by the mid-1990's with
taxi-owners forming cartels which engaged in bloody wars for lucrative routes.
The taxis are unsafe, and their drivers are reckless (passengers dare not
complain). Government attempts at re-regulation are constantly stymied.

The taxi industry operates with impunity, and managed to get ownership of new
Bus Rapid Transit systems in Johannesburg and Pretoria (they'd have shot bus
drivers if they didn't get a stake).

I've been threatened personally with a weapon (a hammer, not a gun,
fortunately) by a taxi driver who felt I didn't move out of his way fast
enough. Not coincidentally, it was around that time that my libertarian
leanings began to wane.

~~~
ef4
"engaged in bloody wars for lucrative routes" "threatened personally with a
weapon"

Isn't the obvious solution to this problem the enforcement of existing laws
against threats and violence?

Or conversely, if the government is so weak that it can't stop the taxi
cartels from fighting bloody battles, surely it's also too weak to enforce cab
licensing laws.

~~~
buyx
Yes, the fundamental problem is a weak state.

However, deregulating the industry made the problem far worse than it could
have been. Our law enforcement is not entirely ineffectual, and a permit
system would have provided more control than a free-for-all, by moderating
supply. Buses remained more tighly controlled and I don't see bus warfare
(there is an upward trend in accidents involving buses though I think that has
more to do with poorly skilled drivers than profit-seeking).

------
jessriedel
It's worth pointing out that many commentors in the last thread on this case
justified the historic price regulation of cabs by municipalities based mostly
off _safety issues_ , and often said that it was reasonable for the government
to continue to so regulate even when technology disrupted the industry:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4221589>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4221844>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4221747>

But the city council gets some angry emails from constituents about blocking
Uber and what do they do? Remove the minimum prices requirements _without_ any
compensating changes to the safety regulations. (Presumably, Uber cabs already
satisfy the safety rules for dispatched sedans.)

So, whatever you think about cab regulation in the abstract, I think this is
good evidence that the mechanism for how the government actually makes
regulatory decisions bares no relation to abstract arguments. The government
officials are just human beings responding to their various incentives.

------
tnash
This is good news. What was proposed before (a price floor five times above
taxis, assuredly to prevent disruption of the taxi industry) was not at all in
the public's best interest.

~~~
Neepy
Agreed. I don't understand preservational methodologies such as this. If the
demand for taxis dies as a result of better alternatives, then let it. How
else will we progress without being willing to give up our old habits?

~~~
qq66
It's not quite as simple as that -- taxis are widely used by homeless/indigent
people as sometimes their only means of transportation to get to the
doctor/employment/etc. These individuals may not have the correct technology
or knowledge to use services like Uber.

If the taxi industry does die, cities should provide some kind of "summon-an-
Uber" facility, perhaps through former payphone locations etc.

~~~
daeken
> It's not quite as simple as that -- taxis are widely used by
> homeless/indigent people as sometimes their only means of transportation to
> get to the doctor/employment/etc.

Wait, seriously? Taxis are pretty universally expensive, so it'd really
surprise me if those without gainful employment were using them. Public
transportation is far less costly, even if it is less convenient most of the
time, so I'd figure that'd be used more in these cases.

~~~
gav
That's assuming you live in a place with good public transportation.

A lot of people you wouldn't expect to be able to afford a taxi have to rely
on them because they can't afford a car. It's one of the defining things about
poverty, you end up spending more money on things than somebody better off
because you can't afford the capital outlay to make it cheaper.

------
10098
I've been their customer for the past few months and I have to say, this
service is quite amazing. It's not cheap, but it is extremely convenient and
the cars and the drivers are really good.

