
DC "Uber Amendment" would force sedans to charge 5x more than taxis - Shenglong
http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/09/dc-city-councils-uber-amendment-would-force-sedans-to-charge-5x-taxi-prices-and-kill-uberx/
======
jtchang
These are the kinds of battles that break out when your business model is
truly disruptive.

The price of taxis is held artificially high and really it is a loss for the
consumer. We are left paying the higher prices for what should be a relatively
free market.

~~~
wilfra
"The price of taxis is held artificially high and really it is a loss for the
consumer."

Absolutely. In Bangkok there are more taxis on the streets than all other cars
combined. You can find one anywhere, anytime and a ten minute ride costs about
$1. No need to own a car, even if you can afford one.

Our minimum wage wouldn't allow for that but there is no reason it needs to
cost $60 to take a 15 minute ride from San Bruno into SF. The gas cost + labor
cost of that ride should be 1/10th of that. Double that to account for profit,
administration and the car and you have a $10-15 ride.

Price it like that and a lot less people would own cars - and there would be a
lot more taxis on the streets to account for the increased demand. And a lot
of jobs.

~~~
mbenjaminsmith
Bad example. I've never seen a city in more need of stiffer regulation than
Bangkok. The single worst part of driving in the city is dealing with
agressive or incompetent taxi drivers. They break traffic laws and block lanes
looking for fares.

The over-supply of taxis has the opposite effect of a more regulated public
transport. It does not reduce the total number of cars on the road. It's
useful from a consumer standpoint but the low cost means people are less
likely to use the state of the art elevated train and subway, both of which
run under capacity.

"Price it like that and a lot less people would own cars." Possibly in other
cities -- though I doubt it -- but it certainly didn't help in Bangkok. People
don't buy cars because they need them, they buy cars because they want them.
The number of news cars sold in the country per day is astounding (though the
number escapes me) and that's despite the fact that they cost 50% - 350% more
than the same cars in the US.

Bangkok needs to regulate the shit out of the taxi industry and make it _more_
expensive to drive in the city if it wants to sort out its remaining traffic
issues.

Uber can probably work in US cities that have the traffic capacity, but it's a
horrible idea in congested areas.

~~~
blake8086
I don't understand _why_ you make the claims that you do.

Why is it bad that people are "less likely to use the state of the art
elevated train and subway"? Is it because they're "state of the art"? That
hardly seems compelling. Is it because the train and subway are faster or
cheaper? Sounds like they're not, otherwise more people would take them. Why
is train and subway usage important if no one wants to use them?

It sounds like you're advocating forcing people to do something they don't
want to do, and I don't understand why you're advocating that.

~~~
mbenjaminsmith
Because favoring the trains would mean fewer cars on the road, something the
city needs.

The trains are faster in many cases (provided you're starting / ending close
the line) but they're not cheaper. Making cabs more expensive would change
this.

Take a look at what Singapore does
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing> to keep cars off the
road. It might seem a bit draconian but it's effective.

~~~
blake8086
Why does it "need" fewer cars on the road? It sounds like the city has as many
cars on the road as the city wants to have.

If the trains aren't cheaper, why should that be the cars' problem? Why not
make the trains a better alternative instead of making cars worse?

Why would you advocate something that "seems draconian" to you?

~~~
grey-area
_Why does it "need" fewer cars on the road?_

If you'd ever been to Bangkok you'd know why it needs fewer cars. Pollution is
terrible, and traffic is appalling - often a journey which should take 20
minutes takes hours, and safety standards are very low - the most popular form
of taxi is a pick-up truck with bench seats in the back which is really unsafe
in the event of an accident. They desperately need to encourage more public
transport and get rid of some of the cars/trucks on the road to prevent rush-
hour gridlock and massive pollution.

The easiest way to clear up the roads for public transport is to make driving
more expensive and use some of that money for improvements in the public
infrastructure. I doubt they'll ever do it, but they could do worse than
follow the example of London with a congestion charge for central areas, and
use the money to subsidise public transport, which is underused at present
(because the train is so expensive, and the buses are so slow due to all the
other traffic).

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Huh? The most popular form of taxi in Bangkok is a typical sedan. The
Songthaews are more like mini-busses and actually are a pretty affordable form
of private small-scale mass transit. They definitely aren't safe, but without
them most of the poorer folks in Thailand would be screwed.

Driving is already fairly expensive in Thailand: cars and gas are both pretty
expensive. Taxis in Bangkok are much more expensive than they are where I live
(tourist areas are even worse with their taxi mafias). Bangkok already has a
public transportation system that is much better than other cities in the area
(barring Singapore), they aren't doing that poorly.

~~~
grey-area
Yes, there is a mix of taxis and probably the cars outnumber trucks (depends
what you're doing, if it's long distance you wouldn't want to take a taxi
because of cost, and I guess they have tuk tuks too). Neither are great
because of the traffic and pollution caused by all the other road users. So
Bangkok is a terrible example of a place which needs more taxis, as if you
want to go any distance at rush hour they are terrible, and they cause all
sorts of problems (pollution, noise, traffic) - it's one of the worst cities
I've been to for traffic.

The public transport there is good (what there is of it), but the BTS and MRT
are both expensive and therefore underused by anyone other than tourists and
business people - most people don't use it and it's not as extensive as other
cities. At least when I've been there the skytrain is remarkably quiet
compared to the streets given how quick and easy it is. It's a shame they
won't tax the cars more in town and use the money for improving public
transport instead IMHO, and Bangkok is a terrible example of a place which
needs less regulation - they need far more regulation on their taxis and
traffic in general in order to manage it as at the moment it is bedlam at rush
hour, partly because of all the taxis, motorbike taxis and trucks. It is a
great example of the free-for-all which results from unregulated capitalism
though.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Skytrain is packed during rush hour, but it's not as packed otherwise. It
seems to go everywhere I need it to when I visit Bangkok, though.

Beijing cut the subway to 2 yuan during/after the olympics (it was 4 yuan
before and even in 1999 it was 3 yuan). The result is that the subway is very
elgalatarian and very packed; I avoid it for the taxi accordingly (spend about
80 yuan a day on taxis). But Beijing traffic is also worse than Bangkok's, and
there is more regulation (no private minibuses, not many tuktuk that are
useful). Whatever they do, the answer to our problems probably isn't more
taxis but public transit is also a problem (for the middle class).

I like Japan the best, where the transit is affordable, convenient, and mostly
comfortable (when not rush hour).

~~~
wilfra
Where China is harmed by their overregulation they are helped by their
practice of creating laws and then selectively enforcing them.

In Zhuhai (near Guangzhou) there are far less taxis on the street than demand
would dictate, however plenty of citizens drive around offering people rides
at similar rates and everybody uses them, locals and foreigners alike. It is
obviously illegal but it is so widespread and common (happens right in front
of you and the police on every major street all day) that it is clear the
police aren't doing anything about it.

That system is very Chinese. They make laws that would seem to restrict
business and then local officials tell the police to ignore them when they
deem their area is better off without them. Unfortunately this also extends to
things like drugs and even kidnapping in some areas. No system is ever
perfect.

------
geekfactor
The headline here is totally sensational and factually incorrect. Has anyone
actually read the linked article?

The proposed amendment sets the minimum for a sedan at 5x the flag pull rate
on a taxi. So, in DC this would mean that the minimum rate for a sedan is $15
bucks. While I'm against government creating arbitrary and anti-competitive
laws like this, it hardly seems as bad as forcing sedans to charge 5x more
than taxis.

~~~
geekfactor
Further, if Uber really wants widespread support on this, they should publish
some data showing how many of their customers/rides would be affected under
this law. How many times in the past year has a customer paid under $15 with
Uber? (I'm suspecting not many, as a percentage of total fares, but that's
total speculation.)

~~~
viscanti
The law puts a floor on non-taxi prices at Uber's current black car price. So
0% of their current black-car fares would be affected. What this does is
prevent any future competition on price (like UberX in San Francisco). The law
will literally prevent anyone (other than a taxi) from charging less than $15
for a ride, and for no obvious benefit to anyone other than Taxis.

For me, the difference here is clear. When I order an Uber, I have a certain
expectation of quality, and I have the option of never using their service if
they totally blow it sometime (or I can give a driver a bad rating, and if
he/she gets enough he gets booted from the service). If I get a lousy ride
from a Taxi, I don't have many alternatives. If a law is passed that prevents
anyone else from competing on price, I have even less options.

------
wallflower
This great story "Why You Can't Get a Taxi" about Uber in the DC metro area
got buried a while ago.

> “I want to get a license to drive a limo,” I told him.

“There’s a moratorium,” he said, and pointed to a memo posted on the wall.

I’d like to tell you exactly what the memo said, but the commission wasn’t
giving out copies—“We had some, but we ran out,” said the security guard, and
no wonder, given that the “temporary” moratorium has been going on for years.
The gist was that there would be no new limo licenses until the commission
decided to hand them out.

“Take a picture with your phone,” suggested a nice driver who was waiting for
an appointment in front of the desk.

“No pictures!” said the guard.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/why-
you-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/why-you-
can-8217-t-get-a-taxi/8942/)

------
ahelwer
Is it wrong that I can't wait until taxi companies are pulverized into dust?
From credit/debit machines that always seem to be "out of order" to being put
in a caller queue in order to tell someone "come get me at this location",
interaction with the industry somehow never seems to be the highlight of my
night.

~~~
spudlyo
Uber is amazing. It's one of my favorite pockets of the unevenly distributed
future that I've come to rely on since moving to SF. Tracking the progress of
my ride on my smartphone as it makes the usually less than 3 minute journey to
me is still a thrill.

Uber is maybe 10% more expensive, yet 500% more reliable. I don't know if
you've ever tried to hail a cab in SF, but it's a huge exercise in
frustration. Calling a dispatch service is equally vexing. I'm with you, the
doom of the Taxi business can't come soon enough for me.

~~~
ryguytilidie
As much as I agree with you in loving Uber, your 10% more calculation is
insanely low.

I have done comparison drives twice. Once I took a cab from SOMA to Pac
heights: $8.35, Uber back to the same spot: $15.95

SOMA to Dolores Park. Cab: 7.90. Uber: 15.25

Clearly not 10%. I guess the big thing for me is that I really don't care
about bottles of water or the type of car the person shows up in. I just want
an on demand service that gets everything done in a sensible way. If there was
a cheaper version of Uber for regular cabs I would be all over it.

The bigger picture though is how much people will fight to keep crappy
businesses in business. We will hear the argument about how we cant lose jobs
right now when unemployment is so high, but for the love of god, this is
progress people. If some cab drivers lose their jobs in the name of progress
is this really worth hurting society over?

~~~
cyen
(Check out side.cr and lyft.me! I've been calling them Uber for poor people.)

~~~
shalmanese
I call them uber for fun people! Even if lyft cost the same as uber, I would
still take a lyft. Being able to joke around with the driver is worth more to
me than leather seats and a free bottle of water.

~~~
viscanti
It's fun until there's an accident. Then it wouldn't be fun at all. I'll
gladly trade "joking with the driver" for a driver licensed and insured to
drive other people. Companies like Lyft make a point of saying they aren't
affiliated with the drivers and have no liability. That means you're depending
on the driver's personal (likely state minimum) insurance.

For me, choosing to ride with vetted drivers who have the proper insurance is
an easy choice. I'm willing to pay much more for that. If I feel the need to
joke around with someone during the ride, I just bring a friend. It certainly
costs more (all other things being equal), to have a properly insured driver
come pick you up. I think it's worth it.

For me, "Fun" comes far down the list of things I look for in a transportation
service. Safe cars, vetted drivers, quick pickups and professional service are
all much more important to me than riding with a driver who is "fun" (or who
put a mustache on the front of their car with the hopes of appearing fun).
I've had a couple UberX rides now, and honestly, that's the sweet spot for me
(affordable ride, clean cars, professional drivers, timely service,
environmentally-friendly and properly insured). It hits all the things I'm
looking for in a transportation service, at a price very close to a Taxi.

------
nchuhoai
First of all, I love Uber, Sidecar and Lyft. I really think that they are the
future of transportation.

That being said, it's not that easy to just blame the public officials for all
the chaos. It is a reasonable danger to these services, there are so many
unknowns. The reason why the cab business is regulated in the first place was
for public safety, so that cab drivers wouldn't just ask for exorbitant
prices, take your luggage hostage etc. Remember, you are still just jumping
into a stranger's car. Regulation was introduced to remedy these concerns (I'm
not saying they are effective)

Airbnb shows how regulation is a reasonable concern. Once you go beyond the
early adopters, there are so many things you have to deal with like insurance,
liability, cleanliness etc. We can't just expect the world to change in an
instant and naively believe everyone in the world does good.

~~~
hack_edu
And the reasons for regulation go beyond consumer protection from shady
drivers. Cab companies are regulated in many cities so that they, literally,
are part of the public transportation infrastructure. NPR had a recent story
about the taxi-towncar debate in Portland that lays out why certain
regulations exist, and affords some amount of justification in this debate.
Simply put; taxis can't discriminate fares/hours while towncar companies can.

Their source claims that law requires they provide a certain level of service
24 hours a day, 365 days per year regardless of demand. This includes a large
portion of cabs be equipped to accommodate the disabled. Further, they are not
allowed to discriminate based on the distance or size of fare.[1]

1\. [http://www.npr.org/2012/06/19/155305029/its-taxis-vs-
limos-i...](http://www.npr.org/2012/06/19/155305029/its-taxis-vs-limos-in-
laid-back-portland)

~~~
viscanti
But taxis still discriminate all the time. Call a cab to come pick you up at
your house. They're legally required to come, but there's strong odds that
they won't. A lot of taxi drivers will ask where you're headed before you get
in. If it's to an area they don't want to go, they'll just take off and leave
you there waiting and waiting.

The regulations in place are rarely (if ever) enforced. It's an issue for the
free market to settle. Let consumers decide if they want 24 hour a day 365
days per year service, and they can hire the company that will meet that
demand. If they want drivers to come pick them up at their house, let them
choose a company that is willing to do that. Setting an artificial price floor
doesn't do anything other than limit consumer's choices.

~~~
rayiner
To be fair, before smart-phones were invented, the free market wouldn't have
worked well for cabs. Cab drivers have zero incentive to compete on quality,
because which cab/company you hire is based on who is nearby, not on your
previous experience with that cab/company.

Now that you can dial up a cab on your smart phone, things might be quite
different.

------
rdl
From my reading, this also makes Uber, Inc. non-regulated by the taxi
commission itself.

What I'd do as a special DC-specific hack is charge the 5x rates, but then
have Uber rebate some percentage back to the user. So if the goal is to charge
$15 for the ride, charge the $50 required under the law and then the taxi
company pays Uber $35 in "Special fuck-DC licensing fee" and then Uber pays
$35 to the user in "DC victim's compensation fund".

~~~
shalmanese
Law is not computer code and judges are not robots. Any competent judge would
clearly rule that such a fund is a blatant attempt to skirt regulation and
come down like a hammer on anyone dumb enough to try it.

~~~
rdl
At which point you can challenge the legality of the law itself, and will have
bought time to get enough happy users in town to make it a political issue and
possibly replace the regulators.

Some legal hacks work, others don't.

------
justinsb
However you feel about it, this is entirely expected. The government has
chosen to regulate taxis; there's a whole bureaucracy around that; there are a
bunch of providers operating within the system. Uber enters and claims the
rules do not apply to it, and threatens to replace the regulated market
entirely. The regulators are now faced with the choice between ending all taxi
regulation, regulating Uber like a taxi, or simply excluding Uber from the
market entirely. If they do nothing, they know that Uber will likely replace
taxis, leaving an unregulated market. If they wanted an unregulated market,
they wouldn't have regulated it in the first place.

When your business is based around regulatory arbitrage, you have to know that
you will only enjoy that advantage for a limited window.

~~~
cheez
You're one removed from the actual decision makers. The real decision makers
are the elite who own the licenses for the taxis. In my city, there are two
families who have the bulk of the licenses and if I am not mistaken, 100% of
the share of licenses for taxis allowed to operate at the airport. If you
think this is about regulation, you are sorely mistaken. Or another way to
think about it: regulation is about protecting profits, not consumers.

~~~
justinsb
Regulation is what starts the ball rolling. I won't dispute that the outcome
is often sub-optimal in some ways (like the one you cited) But the point is
that the result is a whole apparatus which acts to preserve the status quo:
the regulators themselves (who like being employed), the operators that are
profiting from the system, etc.

I'm trying to stay away from the political hot potato of whether taxi
regulation is a net positive thing or not! It's not really relevant to the
point I'm making.

Whether it's profit or bureaucracy that are the drivers now, I think we agree:
Uber must have known this was coming. I look forward to seeing what Uber has
planned; perhaps operating a dispatch service over regular taxis?

~~~
chefsurfing
I think your analysis is correct. It seems likely they will be forced to
integrate and become a taxi service dispatch infrastructure provider. It seems
a smarter move to accept how "sub-optimal" markets such as these have become
and deal with unreality on it's terms than to resist the corruption outright
on principal.

~~~
uvdiv
They can't integrate -- it's the whole point of the corruption, to maintain a
cartel with limited supply, so as to inflate prices and profits. They don't
want them to operate "within the rules" -- they want them to not operate,
period.

No new taxis in D.C.:

 _The supply of cabs is limited by a licensing exam for drivers that's been
closed since 2010._

[http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/22/the-medallion-bill-is-
back...](http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/22/the-medallion-bill-is-back-dc-taxi-
chief)

From an article about D.C.'s plans to establish _explicit_ supply caps
(quotas), like the ones already in place in NYC, SF, etc.

~~~
justinsb
TaxiMagic seems to be operating without any government interference, by
integrating with the existing taxi services.

------
saurik
A ton of people in this conversation are making a ton of assumptions about the
reasons for taxi medallions and the effects that they have on the ecosystem
and marketplace. Given that I doubt any of us run cab companies, this seems
silly: more homework is needed. ;P

It seems like there is a a whitepaper that, in three parts, went into some
detail on the situation in NYC, examining the causes and pulling apart the
proposed solutions, for various of the complaints people have about the
system.

<http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi1.htm> "Factors of Production in a
Regulated Industry: New York Taxi Drivers and the Price for Better Service"

<http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi2.htm> "Villain or Bogeyman? New
York's Taxi Medallion System"

<http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxi3.htm> "Fixing New York City Taxi
Service"

------
malandrew
What they can try to solve this if it passes is to give forward credit to
future rides.

e.g. if a ride costs $7 dollars, charge the user $15 and give them an $8
discount off the next ride. This gives users an incentive to use Uber again
and again since they will always have credit with Uber.

If a user consistently uses less than $15, do something where they get entire
rides "comped". You can't charge less than $15, but I bet this law has a
loophole for "free rides" because no charging is involved.

Either way, some creative thinking with payments + loyalty benefits should
help them get around this if this law eventually passes.

------
peterwwillis
I lived in DC for the past year and a half and never heard of Uber.
Considering my tech-minded friends i'm surprised at the lack of advertisement.

Look at this Washington Post article from 2006, before the fare system was
changed from zones to meters: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/06...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061201428_2.html)

On the old zone system: _""Last night, I had to go to a dinner, and the cab
that brought me back charged me twice as much as the cab that took me there,"
he said as he waited for another taxi outside his downtown hotel. Well, maybe
not quite twice as much, he amended, but $12 vs. $19.50."_

And on meters: _"But opponents of the meter say it would bring unwanted
changes to D.C. taxi service: Residents traveling from poorer outlying
neighborhoods in Southeast or Northeast probably could not afford a meter
ride, they say, because it could add up to much more than a zone fare. Another
reason fares could rise is that the meter would not stop clicking when the cab
is idling in one of the city's infamous traffic jams."_ and _"If they get the
meters, the only cab you'll see in this town will be at hotels, like the other
major cities," Wright said. "You won't find them anyplace else. You won't find
them in the neighborhoods."_

The regulation on fares forces taxicabs to pass up many people who want to go
outside areas with heavy foot traffic or deep pockets because they aren't
going to be able to find a return fare. As such, there are "taxi deserts" all
over the city where you might see one taxi every 45 minutes, and they've
already got a fare, or their meter is off. Slugging through a 1.5-hour bus
ride is often the most reliable form of transportation for these areas.

In order to maximize their payout, plenty of DC taxis will take zig-zagging
routes, go slower than the speed limit, and ride their brakes. A 5.6-mile ride
from the Atlas District up to Petworth may cost the same as an 8.5-mile ride
from Columbia Heights up to Bethesda, using the meter system. Take a cab from
outside the district and you'll find your trip takes significantly less time.

There's probably still a market for an Uber service, even with this brazen
attack on (what seems to me as fair) competition. But don't expect the taxi
lobby to roll over in a town where it took 75 years just to introduce meters.

------
dantheman
Standard government corruption and central planning. Why do we need the
government to manage taxis? Self driving cars are going to further destroy
this industry.

~~~
ry0ohki
Have you been somewhere that Taxi's are unregulated? After they refuse to give
you your luggage until you pay $20 over what was agreed, rob you, leave you at
the wrong destination, etc... is when you realize taxi regulation was setup to
protect consumers.

 _edit_ To clarify, I'm not saying there are no problems with the current cab
systems, only that public safety and consistent fares are one of the main
reasons cabs are regulated by the government

~~~
dantheman
I've been in places where taxis are regulated and I've been ripped off too,
primarily boston and new york:

1\. The taxi driver refused to turn on his meter and then just demanded a fee.

2\. Taxis refusing to take you where you want to go, i.e. getting a cab to
brooklyn.

3\. Taxis not showing up when they've been reserved ahead of time, early
morning airport runs.

4\. Taxis taking long and wrong routes to drive up the fare.

5\. Taxis not knowing the area, and not having a GPS, so they get lost and
then just give up leaving you somewhere.

6\. Being in a taxi where the license picture does match the driver.

So, I've had lots of bad experiences of "regulated" taxis. I've had lots of
good experiences too. As for unregulated, I've been in a few in south and
central america, not sure if they were regulated or not.

~~~
tghw
Saying that you've had bad experiences with regulated taxis is not a counter
argument. For all six of those, there is a number you can call to report them.
And none of them are all that bad.

Get into an unregulated taxi, and you're at their mercy.

~~~
mseebach
Yes, it's a good argument. It shows how the regulation that _ostensibly_ was
set up to protect customers does not consistently do that. And what am I going
to do with a phone number? Spend 20 minutes on hold before I can tell a
disinterested minimum wage call center employee about how my would-have-been
$50 missing taxi caused me to miss my $1500 flight so it's recorded in some
log that nobody ever reads?

The fact that some people might accept the service-failures listed by the GP
as not being bad just shows how low expectations to taxies has become. Luckily
some people believe taxies can do better.

Finally, all but the stauchest libertarians would accept a sensible minimum of
regulation that would provide a minimum of protection, including mandatory
insurance and conspicuous display of photo ID inside the vehicle.

~~~
tghw
You haven't been ripped off by an unlicensed cab before, have you? The
licensed cabs operate in a manner that will at least keep them from having
their medallion taken away. Unlicensed cabs have nothing to fear.

~~~
mseebach
No. I don't ride in unlicensed cabs. That doesn't keep me from wanting
significantly less regulation.

I _have_ been ripped off by licensed ones, though - twice, I think. Both cases
involved foreign counties and drivers who conveniently and suddenly lost their
command of English.

~~~
tghw
Like I said, being ripped off by licensed cabs isn't an argument for less
regulation. It's an argument for something else, possibly more regulation.
Show me that cabs don't need licensing and regulation using unlicensed cabs as
an example, and you'll have an argument.

~~~
mseebach
Uhm, I wasn't giving a counter argument. I was replying to your question. What
you want to do with that is up to you.

Any demonstration in the vein you propose will rely on a measure of caveat
emptor. I would guess I am willing to accept a greater degree of this (trading
strict consumer protection for better competition leading to better service
and lower prices) than you seem to be.

------
guynamedloren
Can someone please explain why government intervention is necessary here, or
how any of this proposed legislature is even legal? When new competitors are
forced to set prices to 5x the incumbents, who is winning? How does that
benefit the customers? I thought the government was supposed to serve the
people, not dying taxi companies that refuse to innovate...

------
joshu
Competition between brokers and reputation systems thereof replace the need
for certification/regulation by the government.

This behavior by the govt is pressure exerted by the desire for homeostasis of
control. Shameful.

------
untog
I'm not surprised that this has happened- vested interests are hardly
something new in government lobbying. But I am amazed at how brazen it is-
even calling it the "Uber Amendment". I suspect that they will get a rude
awakening of the new realities of open government soon enough.

~~~
esonderegger
Those of us who live in and around the District have been waiting for that
"rude awakening" for a very long time.

It's worth pointing out that Marion Barry
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry>) is still sitting on the DC
Council.

~~~
wiredfool
Somewhere in my parents house, I still have a picture from the Post of Barry
flicking off the photographer. They printed it large, on page B1 in 89 or so.

I can't believe he's still around.

------
gpcz
If the amendment is passed still titled as the "Uber Amendment," would the law
be considered a Bill of Attainder against Uber? (
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder> )

~~~
rprasad
No. A bill of attainder refers to legislative bill declaring someone guilty of
a crime. The Amemdment merely prohibits Uber X's planned business model. UberX
would not be guilty of anything unless it went ahead with its planned business
model.

What is it with the armchair lawyers on HN today?

~~~
gpcz
I freely admit that I'm not a lawyer, which is why I asked a question instead
of making a statement. I thank you for your insight, though, as I see you are
a lawyer.

~~~
rprasad
Sorry about my statement about the armchair lawyer bit. On other threads
today, commenters have been making assertions of the law that have no basis in
reality, so my fuse was a little short and I misinterpreted your comment.

------
paulsutter
What can we do to help? Something concrete, I'm at a loss, ideas appreciated.
Bitching about it here is just preaching to the converted. Maybe someone from
über can make suggestions?

I love using über. I like to be able to relax at the table finishing my coffee
as I wait for the car to arrive. I hate standing on the side of the street in
the rain with my hand in the air wondering when a cab will show up. I hate
paying for a driver of a pre-ubercab car service to wait outside for four
hours while I have a drink with friends. Uber eliminates all this crap.

I'd like to help, love to hear a constructive suggestion on what I can do.

------
noarchy
As we speak, Chicago taxi drivers are protesting the fact that fares haven't
gone up in seven years, while their expenses have.

[http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13500/the_7-year_itch_...](http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13500/the_7-year_itch_desperate_for_a_fare_increase_chicago_cabbies_continue_week/)

That's right, they can't even set their own fares. Taxis are regulated to
astonishing degrees. I don't know why they aren't simply brought on as full-
fledged government employees in many of these cities. They'd almost certainly
be getting paid better.

------
wolframarnold
Elected officials should be ashamed of themselves. What are they going to do
when Side.cr or Lyft arrives in D.C. ? Ban private car ownership?

------
DigitalSea
Wait, wait just a minute. I thought a free market meant you were free to
charge what you wanted? /sarcasm. This is ridiculous on so many levels, sounds
like Uber needs to fight back and do a little lobbying of their own. The real
issue here is that Uber has proven to be both cheaper, faster and more
reliable than any NYC taxi service let alone any taxi service anywhere in the
world. Perhaps instead of lobbying maybe these taxi super-lobbyists should be
lobbying their own companies to pick up their acts. Then perhaps they wouldn't
feel the need to resort to dirty tactics as opposed to doing what they should
be doing like most people in business do when they feel threatened by a
competitor: undercut the competitors offering.

Sounds like they've got plenty of cash to lobby that could be better spent
improving NYC taxi services.

~~~
rprasad
Uber is not a taxi service. It is a car service (i.e., a limousine service).

Taxi service: picks up any passenger, off the street, anywhere, without any
prior arrangement to do so. The passenger may not have any opportunity to
investigate the taxi provider ahead of time, or to choose their taxi (i.e.,at
airports or hotels), so regulation is placed on taxi providers for the
protection of passengers.

Car service: picks up a passenger by virtue of a prior arrangement. In some
locations, that arrangement can be be minutes old; in others, the arrangement
must be made hours in advance. The passenger has the opportunity to
investigate and choose the car service provider, so regulation is
significantly reduced.

~~~
DigitalSea
Uber is a taxi service in many ways. Picking someone up to take them to a
destination is very much how taxi's work. Fair enough you can't flag down a
limousine from a sidewalk, but you can also call and arrange for a taxi to
pick you up at an arranged time like Uber and a limousine. Lets not get
confused here, the taxi lobbyists wouldn't feel the need to resort to these
kind of tactics if they felt like Uber wasn't competition.

------
esonderegger
Looks like the Council tabled the matter until november.

<https://twitter.com/SegravesWTOP/status/222696651620483072>

Does anyone know if this means Uber gets to operate Uber X in the meantime?

------
greghinch
When I lived in LA, I heard many times that the taxis there were run by the
Russian mob. I wonder how Uber will fare against them. Russian gangsters arent
really a group I'd want to be the one to "disrupt"

------
delinka
If taxi services would keep up with technology and allow the market to make
and break companies, Uber would not be able to eat their lunch. Same story,
different industry.

------
grumps
So I've scanned the article...

As a DC resident,and one who has a partner that's a social worker.

The "corruption" that is blocking your business maybe partially fueled by the
taxi drivers who don't want to become unemployed. Almost all drivers fall
below the poverty line and rely on social services to support them and their
families.

I'm not really sure how the cab companies do with revenue and profit, but
you'd probably be best off appealing to hiring the drivers to circumnavigate
this issue.

------
andrewpi
DC's taxis are really the worst, so it's not surprising that they are fighting
back so hard to kill a perceived threat to their monopoly. Still, I haven't
used Uber much due to the high prices compared to taxis, but the new lower-
priced UberX could be a real game-changer if it isn't squashed by the
government.

------
robryan
Is this the same as New York where taxis are overpriced but the money is all
flowing to the rich license holders?

------
louischatriot
We have the same kinds of problems in Paris, where it is impossible to try to
increase the number of licences (hence making the price of the licenses held
by current cab drivers go down) without a city-wide strike that paralizes the
city.

------
alan_cx
Using law instead of tax dollars amounts to the exact same thing: State
control and interference. Reminds me of the bad old days of socialism.

------
technotony
"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you
win." M. Gandhi

~~~
uptown
Don't hold your breath waiting for me to mock you.

------
bjornsing
Straight out of an Ayn Rand novel... :)

