
SF Yellow Cab to file for bankruptcy - coloneltcb
http://www.sfexaminer.com/yellow-cab-to-file-for-bankruptcy/
======
Grishnakh
Too bad, so sad... If they hadn't allowed their service to get so horrible,
with nasty old cars, drivers that don't speak English and drive around in
circles to increase fares, drivers claiming their card readers are "broken" so
you have to pay cash, taking an hour to show up when called, passing by black
people, etc., then this wouldn't be happening.

From the article: "Cab drivers, on the other hand, maintain that they undergo
more rigorous criminal checks, enjoy more robust insurance, and generally have
better knowledge of city streets."

Who cares about knowledge of city streets? Haven't they heard of Google Maps
and Waze and GPS? This just shows how out-of-touch and behind-the-times the
cab industry is. The insurance is a canard, as Uber insures their drivers for
more than the cab companies (the problem with Uber is what happens when you
don't have a paying rider). And criminal background checks are useless if you
haven't been in the country very long; how are they going to check your
background in Pakistan? Also, the Uber/Lyft reputation systems are far more
valuable anyway, plus Uber/Lyft keep detailed records of all their drivers'
movements when they have riders, so it's pretty hard for them to get away with
anything; cabs aren't guaranteed to have any of that oversight.

And apparently driving for Uber isn't that bad, since the cab companies are
now complaining that all the good drivers are switching to Uber/Lyft, leaving
them with crappy drivers who earn them huge lawsuits for accidents they cause.

~~~
mayank
> Who cares about knowledge of city streets?

Funny story: for a while in SF, the taxi union (?) was running ads that were
thinly veiled attacks on Uber/Lyft. One of them showed a smiling taxi driver
with the caption "would you rather have a driver who knows the city by heart
or by GPS?" I found it particularly hilarious because the answer, for me at
least, is GPS with live traffic information. Just another example of how out
of touch the taxi companies are.

~~~
rhino369
GPS still doesn't beat a good driver 9 out of 10 times for city driving. Uber
drives consistently miss exits, head down clearly mistaken paths created by
GPS errors, sit there staring at the GPS rather than the road

I uber to work everyday and 90% of the time the uber driver blindly follows
GPS through an alley that isn't really meant for traffic, ignoring the much
simpler and faster route that whatever GPS uber uses can't figure out.

But it's cheaper, cleaner, and will show up on demand. But the navigation of
the driver is the big positive for cabs.

~~~
bstanfield
You Uber to work every day? Isn't that terribly expensive?

~~~
rhino369
I'm only 4 miles, so the trip costs about 9 bucks each way. I don't have a
second car and even if I did, my office charges 300 (pre tax so really less)
to park. And if I'm forced to stay late, I can expense the ride home. So I'm
pretty sure it's cheaper than driving myself.

But I could do public transit for around 2.50 each way. But adding about 15-20
minutes transit time.

What I really should do is bike to work. It's better for my health, wallet,
and environment. I really have no excuse.

~~~
jurassic
I bike commute 8-9 months of the year, but currently am ubering both ways
during this wet El Niño winter we are having as I live without a car.

I estimate my Ubers this year will work out to around

($20/day for uber * ~60 winter work days) = $1200

Most people with modest vehicles will see a total cost of car ownership
costing them somewhere in the $5-10k/year range. So I could double or triple
my already heavy reliance on uber and come out ahead.

TLDR: For those with short commutes, a heavily uber-assisted bike commuting
plan is a huge financial win. And this is not even considering the downstream
value of the productivity and health benefits resulting from regular exercise.
Or the value of the time I can now spend reading instead of driving.

~~~
Johnny555
I'm assuming you're in the SF Bay Area -- there have only been a handful of
days when I've had to break out the rain gear so far this season (today was
one of them). Maybe 5 days max.

If a person is willing to bike to work when it's dry in the morning (even if
it might rain on the way home) there's probably only around 20 - 30 days when
they'd need Uber, so that'd cut the Uber expenses by 1/3 to 1/2.

~~~
jurassic
Totally. I'm the first to admit that I'm a lazy bike commuter and with a
little grit could greatly reduce my commute costs.

The point I was trying to illustrate for anyone reading is that uber is cheap,
not expensive, when used to obviate the need for private vehicle ownership.

------
randomdrake
This is not surprising at all.

Traveling around the world, cab drivers are often times some of my favorite
people. I like the profession, generally finding cab drivers to be interesting
and knowledgeable of local areas. In San Francisco, I try to take regular cabs
when I can just to meet people and support the old profession and working
class folks.

Bay Area, about a week ago. It was dark, cold, and raining around 5:30pm.
Myself and the wife, who is at term and therefore obviously pregnant, got off
at the train station and attempted to take a cab to alleviate the few minute
wait in the rain for a Lyft or Uber.

I didn't have any cash. I know by now that you have to ask if they take credit
card ahead of time; fine.

Me: "Hi, do you take credit card?"

Them: "No, no credit card. It's broken."

Me: "You've got stickers on your window that say you take them?"

Them: "Well, how far are you going?"

Me: "No thanks, I'll try the next one.

Me: "Hello, do you take credit card?"

Them: "Maybe. Where are you going? Minimum 15 dollar."

I know that it's about 12 dollars to my house. I tell him where we're going,
and he just shakes his head.

Me: "Fine, screw it. I'll just get a Lyft."

I pulled out my phone, standing in front of a line of Taxis, and got a Lyft.
About 6-8 minutes later, they picked us up, and took us on our way.

An entire line of cab drivers, my pregnant wife and I standing there in the
rain and cold, and not a single one of them trying to actually take the fare.

During the 15 minutes or so of this interaction, and us waiting for Lyft, not
a single cab was taken by the very strong flow of people leaving the train
station at rush hour. Lots of pickups from friends and family. Plenty of Uber
cars. Pink mustaches in quite a few windshields.

It was like something out of a movie. An entire line of real people, sitting
there in their cars, often complaining about a lack of business, or how times
have changed, or how insurance is X, or Uber is Y.

Not a single one with enough gumption to step up to the plate, smile, and say:
"Where to mister?"

~~~
xxpor
Why do you let them tell you they don't take cards? From a quick googling, it
seems like taxis in SF must take cards. If they drive me somewhere and the
machine's broken, that's not my problem.

~~~
mikeash
It's easier to go with someone who wants my business than to try to force
someone who doesn't want it to take me anyway.

~~~
xxpor
I just wouldn't ask in the first place.

~~~
mikeash
That's just another (better) way to force them.

------
kw71
What's it like to ride in a SF taxi? I'm not a frequent taxi user, but last
time I rode in an NYC cab, the partition made me feel like I was going to jail
and the advertising screen made me feel like I was riding public
transportation. No doubt the normal private cars are more comfortable.

~~~
muaddirac
Where I live there is a minimum fare of $75 imposed on Uber cars leaving from
the airport. I took an Uber there and had a great, simple experience ($34
fare) but had to take a taxi back when returning from my trip.

The cab was falling apart. One of the doors didn't open from the inside. The
axles made horrible, periodic thunking sounds (I'd guess the CV joints but am
no car expert). The engine light, the wheel stability light, and the SRS
warning light lit up the dash. The cab driver drove 10-15mph over the speed
limit and nearly side-swiped several other cars. I asked to pay with a card
and was met with a grunt of disgust, even as I added a standard 10% tip.

I understand there are some regulation issues related to Uber in many cities,
but given the experiences I've had, I can't wait to be rid of taxis.

I should add that in London I had the opposite experience, where the standard
cabs (and official app) were fantastic, but Uber was price gouging during a
tube strike.

~~~
LeoPanthera
Travel to the car rental center and have Uber pick you up there to avoid the
fee. This also works at airports that outright ban Uber.

~~~
viraptor
This is an awesome idea! I never thought of it, but it should work in most
places.

~~~
hkmurakami
You can also take any Hotel shuttle. I do this at LAX.

------
grandalf
It will be interesting if there is room for traditional cab companies after
the market stabilizes. Uber and Lyft have been effectively subsidizing fares
at the same time as providing superior service.

It is not really clear what level of service the market demands without loads
of venture capital helping to subsidize it.

------
ChuckMcM
Does anyone know how much of this has to do with the crashing value of Taxi
Medallions ? One article on a company in the NYC area claimed they had loans
where they used the Medallions as collateral and that the crashing value was
putting the loan in danger of being called by the bank.

------
mikeash
"In reality, we have the best color scheme there is in the world, we’ve got a
lot of loyal customers, we still get a high volume of calls to our color
scheme on a daily basis"

Does "color scheme" have a special meaning in the taxi business, or is this
guy actually bragging about how their cars are painted?

~~~
patio11
Yellow cabs are a multi-organization multi-city brand; so are e.g. checkered
cabs. It's like Coke vs. Pepsi without the central corporate parent. Not
inconceivable an independent bottler would prefer bottling for Coke rather
than Pepsi right?

------
amorphid
Speaking only for myself...

The process of calling a toll free number for a SF cab sucks. Often get a busy
signal. Most of the time they are slow to respond. Some times they never show
up at all. Basically, I can't count on them to be timely.

Uber (and formerly Sidecar) just shows up in a few minutes and takes me where
I wanna go.

------
nodesocket
This was bound to happen, just a matter of time. Uber and Lyft are able to
operate at much lower costs, and additionally have basically an unlimited
supply of capital (VC investment). Traditional businesses have no chance of
being competitive in this market.

~~~
kzhahou
What makes U&L lower cost? Just the lack of driver health insurance and
benefits?

~~~
fweespeech
Lack of driver health insurance, lack of benefits, lack of liability from
crashes, reduced compliance costs via skirting local regulations [e.g.
Background checks for Uber/Lyft are cheaper than the more thorough checks in
some municipalities]

[http://www.texastribune.org/2015/10/07/background-checks-
cen...](http://www.texastribune.org/2015/10/07/background-checks-center-city-
fights-uber/)

[http://www.cnet.com/news/ubers-background-checks-dont-
catch-...](http://www.cnet.com/news/ubers-background-checks-dont-catch-
criminals-says-houston/)

~~~
Grishnakh
Background checks are a canard. How do the cab companies check the background
of someone from Uzbekistan? They can't, they can only go back as far as that
person has been in the country, which isn't very long judging by their mastery
of English.

U/L do carry insurance for their drivers when they're driving a passenger, and
it's probably more than the regular cab companies carry (which is why SF
Yellow cab is going bankrupt: they weren't insured for enough for one of their
incompetent drivers, according to the article). Also, U/L have deeper pockets
than any local cab company/coop, so civil suits will net higher payouts too if
it came to that.

As for health insurance, from what I've read a lot of cab drivers aren't full-
time employees either, so they also don't get health insurance, or benefits.

~~~
fweespeech
> Background checks are a canard. How do the cab companies check the
> background of someone from Uzbekistan?

In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think
of a scenario where background checks fail."

By that logic, stop visiting the doctor, using seat belts, or any safety
device known to man because it can fail for some non-0 fraction of the time.

> U/L do carry insurance for their drivers when they're driving a passenger,
> and it's probably more than the regular cab companies carry (which is why SF
> Yellow cab is going bankrupt: they weren't insured for enough for one of
> their incompetent drivers, according to the article)

[http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2015/02/09/uh-ohuber-
has-...](http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2015/02/09/uh-ohuber-has-some-
coverage-issues)

[http://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/ubers-yawning-
insurance...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/ubers-yawning-insurance-
gap#.edxlxR64w)

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrycampbell/2015/10/07/why-
are...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrycampbell/2015/10/07/why-are-so-many-
las-vegas-uber-drivers-lying-to-their-insurance-companies/2/)

> Drivers can answer no and effectively lie to their insurance company (while
> also committing insurance fraud) but still receive coverage, or they can say
> yes and they would be immediately denied coverage. Additionally, they could
> even be dropped from their policy for disclosing that they are a rideshare
> driver.

> Since it’s not really in Uber’s best interest to disclose the lack of
> collision coverage during Period 1, many drivers don’t discover that they’re
> not covered until it’s too late. I’ve been researching rideshare insurance
> options in Nevada since Uber went live and spoken with hundreds of Uber
> drivers yet we haven’t been able to find a single insurance carrier willing
> to insure rideshare drivers. Some carriers offer a commercial policy but the
> cost is prohibitive at $3,000-$5,000 a year.

> Meanwhile, risk-averse insurance companies have been excruciatingly slow to
> adapt to this new and innovative form of transportation. I maintain an up to
> date list of insurance options by state for Uber drivers on my site and
> you’ll notice that Nevada is not currently on that list. There literally
> isn’t a single option for drivers which unfortunately is somewhat typical. A
> majority of states in the US still don’t offer a rideshare friendly personal
> insurance or hybrid policy for Uber drivers which means a whole lot of
> drivers are forced to lie to their insurance carriers or find a different
> line of work.

There are some pretty significant gaps in that coverage that shift the burden
to drivers, depending on the state.

In fact there is an entire business built around the fact there are massive
holes in that policy:

[https://www.metromile.com/uber/](https://www.metromile.com/uber/)

> Traditional auto insurance policies may not provide clear coverage for
> drivers who participate in ridesharing programs. The partnership between
> Uber and Metromile means you’re insured 24/7, whether you’re using your car
> for personal use or driving with Uber. Now, Metromile offers complete
> clarity to Uber driver partners.

The difference with Uber is the driver gets fucked instead of the Taxi/Uber
company.

> As for health insurance, from what I've read a lot of cab drivers aren't
> full-time employees either, so they also don't get health insurance, or
> benefits.

I'm not even going to bother with this one. I've pointed out enough holes
already.

~~~
simoncion
> In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can
> think of a scenario where background checks fail."

You say this like it's a bad idea to hire people who were convicted of
felonies who've served their time and are now out of jail.

> There are some pretty significant gaps in that coverage that shift the
> burden to drivers, depending on the state.

> In fact there is an entire business built around the fact there are massive
> holes in that policy:

That "entire business" is "an auto insurance company". Funny that. You see
"massive holes". I see "the market at work". Do you wish to _force_ insurers
to take on risks that they can't take in a fiscally responsible way?

Anyway. In CA, folks who drive for nontraditional taxi services like Lyft and
Uber have access to (and are required to carry) coverage while transporting a
fare, coverage between the time they accept that fare and the time that they
pick up that fare, and all other times they are operating their vehicle.
[0][1][2]

As with all things political, it will take far too long for this to become the
policy everywhere, but it's pretty much inevitable.

To analogize: just because many Red States like Alabama refused to accept no-
strings-attached Federal subsidization of Obamacare premiums for their poor,
and refused to use no-strings-attached Federal money to expand Medicare to
cover those who fall into the "Medicare gap" doesn't mean that those programs
are bad, or a disaster. It's just a fact of life that many politicians love to
play football with other people's livelihoods.

[0] [http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/05/29/a-look-at-farmers-new-
in...](http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/05/29/a-look-at-farmers-new-insurance-
for-california-uber-and-lyft-drivers)

[1] [http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/10/12/lyft-drivers-
car...](http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/10/12/lyft-drivers-car-
insurance-policy-metlife/)

[2] [http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Fatal-accident-
tests-...](http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Fatal-accident-tests-
Lyft-s-1-million-5867623.php)

~~~
fweespeech
> You say this like it's a bad idea to hire people who were convicted of
> felonies who've served their time and are now out of jail.

Yes, because its a good idea to put them in a position of power right after
they are out of jail. Did you not bother to read the link to the drunk girl
who stupidly got into a car with one of these guys?

One of the main arguments proponents make about these services is driving
people who have been drinking home and people in strange places home.

"Hey this one situation is risky, we shouldn't let them do X because there are
clear instances of bad things happening because they pick up impaired
passengers." isn't even close to saying "HEY NO ONE HIRE FELONS".

If you want to engage in childish strawman arguments that have nothing to do
with the problem I'm discussing, go troll someone else.

> Anyway. In CA, folks who drive for nontraditional taxi services like Lyft
> and Uber have access to (and are required to carry) coverage while
> transporting a fare, coverage between the time they accept that fare and the
> time that they pick up that fare, and all other times they are operating
> their vehicle. [0][1][2]

> But drivers have been incurring all sorts of risks when they use their
> personal vehicles for TNC work. During Period 1, Uber and Lyft do not offer
> collision (coverage for when the policyholder is at fault), comprehensive
> (for fire, theft and other damage), underinsured motorist coverage or
> medical payments. (They also do not offer those coverages for the succeeding
> periods, unless drivers carry them on their personal policies).

> The new insurance is offered by Farmers as a supplement — called an
> endorsement — to drivers’ personal auto policies, and it will cost an
> additional 8 percent of their premium. A smaller insurer, MetroMile, already
> offers individual ride-service insurance, but it’s exclusive to Uber
> drivers. That insurance costs a base rate plus a per-mile charge.

Yes, your article agrees I'm correct despite you arguing with me for some
bizarre reason(?)

The drivers themselves need to buy supplemental insurance or there is a gap in
coverage during Period 1.

~~~
simoncion
> Yes, because its a good idea to put them in a position of power right after
> they are out of jail. Did you not bother to read the link to the drunk girl
> who stupidly got into a car with one of these guys?

Wow.

Bro. A couple of things:

Humans who would launch unjustifiable assaults against other humans come in
all shapes and sizes. Some of them are convicted felons. _Most_ of them are
not. A _proper_ background check [0] discovers with a relatively high degree
of certainty whether or not one is likely to assault another (among many other
things).

It often takes a _very_ , _very_ long time before one can seal a felony
conviction. "The guy who can't find solid work because he did a dramatically
stupid thing a decade ago, despite the fact that he's a _dramatically_
different and dramatically better guy now than he was then" is kinda
archetypical.

A prior felony conviction, along with the degree of one's success at
rehabilitation is just another datapoint to be considered in a proper
background check.

> "Hey this one situation is risky, we shouldn't let them do X because there
> are clear instances of bad things happening because they pick up impaired
> passengers."

You say that like _regular_ cabbies with clean records aren't not-infrequently
accused of theft, assault, and swindling. :/

> Yes, your article agrees I'm correct despite you arguing with me for some
> bizarre reason(?)

Heh. You said:

> The difference [in regards to insurance coverage] with Uber is the driver
> gets fucked instead of the Taxi/Uber company. [1]

From what I can tell (and from what I've read in the Uber driver recruitment
letters I've been getting in the mail), Uber et. al. are straightforward about
the limits of their insurance.

You all-but-explicitly claimed that nontraditional cab companies were making
it difficult to understand the limits of their insurance policies. Perhaps
their policies in regards to disclosure of this information have changed
recently, but everything I've read that was _actually published_ by the
companies in question was straightforward and clear.

[0] I know what such a thing is because I was subject to one in a former life.

[1] Amusingly, you said this right _after_ you mentioned that Uber had done
the legwork required to _find_ an insurer that was willing to insure
commercial drivers making use of their personal vehicle during the time that
they're not driving _for_ Uber.

~~~
fweespeech
> A proper background check [0] discovers with a relatively high degree of
> certainty whether or not one is likely to assault another (among many other
> things).

...yet you don't want Uber to do proper background checks. Okay.

That makes no sense and you basically admit I'm correct then go on and on
about something else.

> From what I can tell (and from what I've read in the Uber driver recruitment
> letters I've been getting in the mail), Uber et. al. are straightforward
> about the limits of their insurance.

Once again, you aren't countering my argument in any way shape or form. You
are saying "Well, yes the burden is shifted to drivers and that is okay."

> You all-but-explicitly claimed that nontraditional cab companies were making
> it difficult to understand the limits of their insurance policies

You clearly don't understand what I've written at all and I'm going to stop
here because its pretty clear you are attacking strawmen and patting yourself
on the back for it for some bizarre reason.

~~~
simoncion
> ...yet you don't want Uber to do proper background checks. Okay.

Heh. When did I say that? I bet you can't provide a quote... because I neither
said it, nor implied it. :)

From the sound of it, it's _you_ who's interested in forgoing proper
background checks, and just blackballing _everyone_ who's been convicted of a
felony:

> In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can
> think of a scenario where background checks fail."

Think through your statement:

* You -obviously- strongly disagree with Grishnakh's assertion that background checks are frequently going to be insufficient to root out _everyone_ who would harm another human while driving them around... especially when they've recently arrived in the country.

* You express that disagreement by rephrasing his statement as (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Because background checks fail, it's okay to hire convicted felons who've served their time and are now out of jail.".

* This implies that you feel that blanket prohibitions on employing people who've been previously convicted of a felony are acceptable.

If one wants to perform a more-thorough-than-usual background check on folks
convicted of a felony, charge them more to perform the check. [0] Do _that_ ,
rather than instituting a policy that ends up being -at best- dramatically
classist, -at worst- dramatically racist, and -at all times- dramatically
damaging to the folks who've reformed themselves and are now decent, honest,
useful people.

> You are saying "Well, yes the burden is shifted to drivers and that is
> okay."

Sure, but that wasn't the core of your argument. Your argument's core was that
Uber et. al. were being dishonest and/or intentionally deceptive about the
limits of their coverage.

> You clearly don't understand what I've written at all...

No, I do. I can read both the text _and_ the subtext of what you've written.
:)

[0] But, frankly, the same level of scrutiny should be applied to
_everyone_... you never know who's an antisocial scumbag that just hasn't been
caught yet.

~~~
fweespeech
> You -obviously- strongly disagree with Grishnakh's assertion that background
> checks are frequently going to be insufficient to root out everyone who
> would harm another human while driving them around... especially when
> they've recently arrived in the country.

I literally said otherwise:

> In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can
> think of a scenario where background checks fail."

Aka "We should continue to use background checks as prescribed by the locally
democratically elected authority even tho they can fail in some scenarios."

That isn't a statement on the accuracy of those background checks and only a
complete idiot would come to that conclusion.

> * You express that disagreement by rephrasing his statement as (and I'm
> paraphrasing here) "Because background checks fail, it's okay to hire
> convicted felons who've served their time and are now out of jail.".

> Yes, because its a good idea to put them in a position of power right after
> they are out of jail. [Sarcasm]

Its a specific discussion of people who are in positions of power.

> * This implies that you feel that blanket prohibitions on employing people
> who've been previously convicted of a felony are acceptable.

1) People who fail standard and normal background checks because of felonies
when attempting to get a job that places them in a position of power.

2) You keep re-stating what I say to make it apply to a broader context than
what I actually say which is simply arguing with a strawman, yet again.

> If one wants to perform a more-thorough-than-usual background check on folks
> convicted of a felony, charge them more to perform the check.

It is usual and standard to have a background check performed by
fingerprinting to the standards of the city of Houston when engaging in
services regulated by the city of Houston.

Once again, you seem to argue against a strawman for no apparent reason.

> Sure, but that wasn't the core of your argument. Your argument's core was
> that Uber et. al. were being dishonest and/or intentionally deceptive about
> the limits of their coverage.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

> There are some pretty significant gaps in that coverage that shift the
> burden to drivers, depending on the state.

That was the argument. The context was in relation to Taxi companies. Yes, the
insurance burden is shifted and you just agreed with it.

Congratulations.

> No, I do. I can read both the text and the subtext of what you've written.
> :)

1) You've admitted my argument that part of the cost savings is by shifting
the some of the burden from Uber/Taxi company to drivers for insurance.

2) You admit I'm correct that they should use normal and customary background
checks used by the local democratically elected authority.

3) You've basically agreed my argument is fundamentally sound and 100%
correct. Or you are lying in your most recent post.

4) Your entire attack on my argument is from the angle of re-writing my
argument to attack a strawman.

> Heh. When did I say that? I bet you can't provide a quote... because I
> neither said it, nor implied it. :)

Actually, you did even in your most recent post.

Given "proper" background checks in the context of skirting local regulations
is determined by the locally democratically elected authority (the city of
Houston) by arguing against that position, you literally said:

> Do that, rather than instituting a policy that ends up being -at best-
> dramatically classist, -at worst- dramatically racist, and -at all times-
> dramatically damaging to the folks who've reformed themselves and are now
> decent, honest, useful people.

1) You can't actually invalidate how Houston is handling this without accusing
Uber of being racist, classist, and dramatically damage to felons who have
reformed.

2) This is due to the main difference is the fact Houston wants people
fingerprinted and Uber didn't comply.

3) You ignored the actual flaw in my argument (Houston would have cleared the
driver I used as an example in their background check) to accuse me of being
racist, classist, etc.

Congratulations. I just proved it using standards of evidence you are.

 _applauds_

------
flippyhead
I'm currently programmer nomad-ing in Uruguay and have been __delighted __with
Easy Taxi. I don 't know if all the cabs use it, but tons of them do and it
works just as well as Lyft/Uber did for me in Seattle. Real-time updates of
location, ratings, instant confirmation of fare acceptance... I say I want a
cab and pretty much get one within 5 minutes no matter where or when I am.

It's all the same yellow and black taxies but everyone has a cell phone
mounted to their dash and.. it just works. I'll never ever understand why
taxies in the US haven't done this. Had they, I probably wouldn't have
switched _exclusively_ to using Lyft.

~~~
lucaspiller
It's the same here in Lithuania, when Uber started to become popular a few
years ago the taxi companies joined forces and launched their own apps (there
are two main competing apps).

I don't understand how US taxi companies have been so oblivious to this, given
each one in major cities probably has more cabs than the whole country does
here :D

Uber finally launched a couple of months ago, but it's more expensive and
doesn't have as many cars.

------
justinzollars
Just before Uber in 2009 I was once left stranded at Jerry Garcia Amphitheater
because it was "out of the way" for the cab company. I had to walk several
miles through the hills to get home. Uber solved a huge problem for us.

------
josephpmay
Anyone else baffled by this line?

>> “In reality, we have the best color scheme there is in the world, we’ve got
a lot of loyal customers, we still get a high volume of calls to our color
scheme on a daily basis,” he said.

------
facetube
The first and last yellow cab I took in San Francisco: the driver didn't know
where the Presidio was, took us somewhere completely different, and then
argued with us for a solid five minutes insisting we'd given him the wrong
address (we hadn't, multiple times, with the zip code, explaining that it was
near the Golden Gate bridge). The driver had a GPS unit in the car. I couldn't
even get angry; brain was already saturated with amazement.

------
enahs-sf
I will miss the transportation market taxi cabs provide. When the constraint
is on supply-side (drivers) but the cost is constant (that is, given a
sufficiently capable driver, your fare should be about the same) you're only
limited by hailing a cab, which has become quite a bit easier now that
everyone is using Lyft and Uber. Oh well. I get that the QoS is not as
consistent with cabs, but I always found that part fun.

------
dbg31415
Please please please let Austin's Taxi companies be the next to fall.

Between shitty customer service, not showing up on time (or at all), and
having drivers that will always try and take the slowest shittiest way to get
anywhere to inflate the bill... I can't wait for them to go out of business.

Spot the cab driver with a passenger... he'll drive 50 MPH in a 65 zone. Spot
the cab driver without one... he does 90. So not only do they rip the
passenger off, but they fuck up traffic for everyone behind them. Fucking
cunts, they all deserve to be put out of business.

Can not count the number of times I called a cab to the airport in the last 10
years, only to have the cab not show up on time leaving me in a spot where I'd
have to beg a neighbor to take me to the airport, or drive myself and pay for
week-long parking my company didn't cover when I had to take a business trip.

Uber and Lyft... they may not be perfect, but they're infinitely better than
taxis. Infuckingfinetly better.

Taxis going out of business... 1) natural selection, and 2) good riddance.

------
iamleppert
Good riddance. Almost all of my Yellow Cab experiences have been awful.

------
habosa
There are a lot of comments in this thread about the problems Uber solves. I'd
like to pose a different question: which of those problems is not solved by
Flywheel?

For those who don't know, Flywheel is an app that lets you call a regular taxi
cab with an Uber-like dispatch system. You watch the cab arrive with GPS and
pay on your phone. It is some small fixed cost over the cost of a cab, no
surging obviously. And you can put in your destination for the driver to
navigate to via GPS, just like Uber.

~~~
RickS
I think there's an element of principle to it. I certainly feel that way, and
it appears the majority does as well.

App GPS, app payment, star ratings... these are not new things. And yet the
taxi industry couldn't be bothered to better itself until a higher quality
service came through and gutted their profits.

Consumers suffered some universally abhorrent treatment for years because
taxis flat out don't give a fuck. And now, what.. all is expected to be
forgiven because they're suddenly in the app store?

They made this bed. They can lie in it.

~~~
habosa
That is the biggest point in favor of Uber, their threat made some taxi
operators attempt to get their act together.

I think that in a few years Uber will learn to give as few fucks (to borrow
your phrasing) as taxi companies do today. Most of the current taxi drivers
will become Uber drivers, Uber will have too many riders to do reasonable
customer service, and there will be no incentive to go the extra mile for
customers when there is no entrenched competition to outshine.

The only reason I bother playing the devil's advocate in pro-Uber threads is
because I don't like how they got here. They used VC money to barrel into ever
major city and actively ignore the law. It's just one more symptom of the
problem that having a billion dollars in America makes you above the law.

------
lnanek2
Good to hear. The few times I've called a cab in SF it never showed up. I've
heard there is no penalty to them if they just pick someone else up instead on
the way. So glad their company got the penalty for poor service in the end.

------
msie
I've had mostly good taxis, some okay taxis and a lot of taxis that just
didn't show up. Luckily I haven't had any bad taxi rides.

------
theworstshill
Smith's invisible hand in action.

------
beedogs
Have fun paying your "surge pricing" every weekend, San Franciscans.

Chumps.

------
jayess
I love the smell of creative destruction in the morning.

------
bobby_9x
Uber/Lyft are very interesting. The main reason cabs are so terrible is
because the unions have a complete stranglehold on the industry, which means
pretty much no advancement in technology and monopolistic pricing.

They both are basically going against everything the unions stand for by not
having regular wages or benefits.

Edit: Admitting you're wrong is not something most people here on HN can do.
Instead, they downvote.

~~~
Grishnakh
Um, I thought the reason cabs are so terrible is not because of unionization,
but because it's a _cartel_ , and it's given that power by the government
because of the issuance of licenses (called "medallions") which ensure a
limited supply of cabs, artificially restricting competition.

~~~
bobby_9x
"but because it's a cartel, and it's given that power by the government
because of the issuance of licenses (called "medallions") which ensure a
limited supply of cabs, artificially restricting competition."

Right, the unions. It's not a corporation that is artificially restriction
competition, it's the unions. These unions have deals with the government.

The same thing happens in the auto industry.

~~~
Grishnakh
No, that's not a union, that's a cartel. A union is an organization of _labor_
, not company owners. And it's the cab owners who have the deal with the
government.

~~~
bobby_9x
You are just mincing words to make it seem like unions aren't the bad guy
here.

The auto unions, for instance, are larger than most big corporations and many
of the leaders get paid out millions of dollars in bonuses every year.

Read the first line of this article:

[https://news.vice.com/article/taxi-drivers-are-trying-to-
tak...](https://news.vice.com/article/taxi-drivers-are-trying-to-take-down-
uber)

"Taxi unions in cities such as Boston, Denver, New York, and San Francisco are
not pleased...."

Sorry, but they are unionized and like every other industry where unions have
control, you get inflated wages and higher prices. It nearly put the big 3 out
of business during the downturn of 2008.

Companies like Toyota didn't even bat an eye during that time because they
could make changes with ease.

~~~
biot
Boston only started to unionize in 2007, for example. Prior to the labor union
being formed, the taxi cartel has long had an artificially restricted monopoly
on medallions, which ensures a lack of competition and discourages innovation,
causing them to stagnate and become ripe for disruption. I'm sure having
unionized labor doesn't help in keeping costs down and the driver unions have
gone on strike over things like requiring GPS, but you have failed to
demonstrate that the labor union is the primary cause of their current
troubles. If that were the case, you ought to be able to show that prior to
2007, Boston's taxi companies were constantly innovating and upping their game
and that it's only after unionization that they have stagnated.

In fact, the GPS strike was due to the New York Taxi and Limousine Commission
enacting rules that required the use of GPS -- this was something that the
taxi companies could have introduced themselves if they were at all
competitive, but due to their cartel status why should they even bother?

[0] [http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2007/08/steelworkers-
organi...](http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2007/08/steelworkers-organize-
boston-taxi.html)

