
Uber sign-ups soar by 850 percent as cab drivers protest - happyscrappy
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0611/Uber-sign-ups-soar-by-850-percent-as-cab-drivers-protest
======
ryguytilidie
I saw that the protest cost London something like ~650 million pounds. Seems
like the Police should just block the front of the line, arrest all the
drviers and tow their cars one by one. Would clear up traffic and would send a
pretty clear message that fucking everyone in a city because you're upset is
not okay.

------
waylandsmithers
This seems like an extremely risky move by the "official" cab drivers.
Angering their potential customers and removing themselves from the pool of
drivers for the strike just seems like it would send people running into
Uber's open arms.

~~~
naturalethic
Bullies aren't that bright.

------
Maskawanian
So... taxi drivers go on strike to punish Uber? Why would uber care if they
do? Or are they going on strike just to not work?

~~~
rakoo
Taxi drivers went on strike because taxi drivers and uber drivers don't have
the same requirements for doing what amounts to be the same job. In short,
becoming a taxi driver is hard and extremelly expensive, becoming a uber
driver is easier and cheaper. So these strikes are more against the unfair
regulation than against Uber and the likes.

~~~
avz
This is a misrepresentation.

Taxi drivers are not protesting against the regulation. In fact, in most
places taxi drivers and their unions are strong supporters of the said
regulations and have worked for decades to get it in place. It's a typical
situation where a bunch of "insiders" have striven for years to keep
"outsiders" away with the goal of reducing competition.

Another typical aspect to this situation is how technology upends a structure
put in place by legalistic means.

~~~
pistle
Do Uber drivers pay taxes to the municipalities in which their drivers deliver
service? The regulators and the regulated both get something from the status
quo.

Selling medallions, etc. gets the city in which the drivers do business some
revenue to pay for the services the city must provide to support the business.
Taxes help fund roads, police, administration, etc.

The "situation" is more complex than you describe and the unintended
consequences of Uber are nowhere in the discussion.

I'm surprised that Uber hasn't put forth licensing a version of their
infrastructure for use by black/yellow cabs for dispatch. They can provide
access to customers along with a pretty seamless payment process.

~~~
avz
They pay income taxes.

The primary intent of medallions is not to raise funds for infrastructure.
Their goal is to keep people out of the business. You can tell by the fact
that they're regressive: they burden lower-income persons more than higher-
income thereby preventing new competition from low-skilled workers and
guaranteeing safety to the incumbents.

~~~
pistle
Income taxes for drivers likely do not benefit the municipalities where the
cars are driving. e.g. The drivers would be consuming space and wear and tear
in NYC, but living in Jersey. NYC roads and services necessary to support
increased congestion get burdened, but no tax dollars help support them.

A regressive policy has nothing to do with the goal of the medallions. They
cost what market forces will support. The goal of high-end watches is to keep
poor people from knowing what time it is.

The medallions aren't for infrastructure. I'd argue the medallions are
supported by both the city and existing cabbies because of congestion and
quality management issues. It's a way to ensure minimal levels of service and
to punish bad (well, abhorrent) service.

The tax on fares is for infrastructure and administration. In NYC, $.50/trip
is imposed. What's Uber paying?

I guess Uber couldn't know when it was dealing with a NYC fare subject to the
tax... Oh, wait they couldn't offer that since it would imply they were a taxi
service subject to other regs... So, they have to flaunt all the laws and put
themselves in a legal bind that isn't all "just obvious barriers to entry."

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Medallions are meant to regulate supply with demand, nothing more. Other fees
go to road maintenance (gas tax, tab tax, tolls, etc...) and are actually sort
of related to usage.

Uber is doing what it can disrupt the status quo, the laws are ambiguous
enough that they can get away with it. Admirable in my opinion.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Medallions shouldn't be assets you can own, transfer, rentseek on. They should
be a lottery, with no cash value if their purpose is to restrict the number of
vehicles in a geographic area.

------
dmritard96
Its interesting, every uber I take in Chicago (typically a yellow cab instead
of UberX) and ask the driver what they think. They generally seem to like it
because its safer, easier and more efficient for them (they always know where
people are instead of having to hang around popular corners, they can skip on
people if that last cab had bad things to say, etc.).

But it is surprising to me that they don't complain about the fact that they
laid down serious cash for a medalion, or pay other fees to the city to
operate. I would especially think UberX would bother them. I think in the
short term they are happy but I suspect they will start to get more upset if
uberX starts to take away business. Right now, its earning them more money.

In Florida, they are having issues with UberX for that very reason
([http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/11/4172680/miami-dade-
tax...](http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/11/4172680/miami-dade-taxicab-
industry-protests.html)).

Its interesting to watch a number of industries just get blindsided by these
disruptive technologies. Seeing it with crowd-sourced cab rides (uberX),
direct autosales instead of dealers (Tesla dealer controversy) and crowd-
sourced accommodations (airBnB). Some of the regulations placed on the older
players in those spaces were put there to protect the consumer and/or the
industry but my take is that consumer choice is providing better options and
bypassing the need (or maybe it just hasn't come up yet) for these
regulations. But then the people who played by the rules get mad or cling to
them if it allows them to maintain their position a little longer.

~~~
daniel-cussen
The people who own taxi medallions are usually not the taxi drivers
themselves. The medallion owners (who usually own many medallions and rent
them out to drivers) are as pissed off about Uber as you would expect.

------
paddyoloughlin
Company's PR says that possibly controversial event for company results in
huge benefit for said company.

Hm.

I'm not saying it not true, but it's playing in to an expectation that a lot
of people had when they heard about this protest. So until there's independent
evidence, I'll take the specifics of this claim with a dose of salt.

Edit: Suggesting that one be reasonably skeptical of unverified company PR is
downvote worthy? Come on...

~~~
timclark
Uber ran full page ads in London's free newspapers yesterday, so it looks like
they were planning on benefitting from the controversy.

~~~
paddyoloughlin
I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised. It was the sensible thing to do.

My point is that it is also sensible for Uber to claim that it has resulted in
a massive success for their company. It makes themselves seem savvy and the
taxi drivers short-sighted.

Of course, the goal of the taxi drivers' protest not really about getting
people to not use Uber so much as it is about getting the regulators to change
their decision that Uber's app doesn't count as a taximeter.

------
melvinmt
The disruptive nature of Uber will make policy makers eventually doubt who to
support: should they keep protecting the jobs of the taxi industry while Uber
is creating jobs at a much higher pace?

~~~
opendais
They are protecting tax revenues, not the taxi industry.

~~~
sukuriant
Then tax Uber in a special way?

~~~
opendais
Doesn't need to be a special way.

1 medallion per car per shift [iirc] + the per-trip tax.

It is just they need to pass the laws to do that and haven't yet. Of course, I
think Uber is lobbying against being taxed given that they've tried to evade
paying taxi-like taxes so far.

------
antonwinter
the post got me because i just signed up. I live in melbourne. it is not
possible to get a cab on a friday or saturday night. trial run coming up
tomorrow

~~~
illumen
Beware that you may get fined in Melbourne because it is illegal. It's more
likely your driver will get fined though.

~~~
w1ntermute
How do they know who to fine? Aren't all these transactions done purely
digitally? You could just be getting into a friend's car, there's always
plausible deniability.

~~~
illumen
People have already been fined in Melbourne.

~~~
antonwinter
got a link to articles on it?

------
hyp0
With both the taxi and hotel industries being disrupted (technical meaning), I
wonder if there's a pattern here... Is it a direct consequential of the web,
enabling new ways to connect customers and providers? Or, deeper societal
forces at work, making this a general time of change for other, non-
technological reasons?

Or just coincidence...?

~~~
codyb
The web started as a distributed system. It is turning these industries into
distributed systems (A car from a person with time and a car at a time when a
consumer needs a car as opposed to strict 8 hour shifts. A bed from a person
with a bed when a consumer needs a bed as opposed to a centralized location
with many beds). It will be interesting if we see these newly distributed
systems consolidate in the future. And I wouldn't be surprised to see realtors
with house hotels rented through air BnB. And I've noticed there are already
plenty of people with cars looking for uber drivers.

I think it is a direct consequence. When people can so easily access and post
information regarding availability of luxuries and commodities it relieves the
need for centralization. The question should be, what's the cost? Do I go to
the hotel which will be able to put me in another room when there are
problems? Or go for the quaint feeling of a person's home. Homes are generally
in residential areas, but if I'm touring I might want the luxury of staying in
downtown. Hopefully these two industries can live side by side to provide the
greatest good for the greatest number of consumers.

(This doesn't even include the possible costs in terms of flimsy insurance
guidelines for Uber drivers in some municipalities or locales, or property
value depreciation for neighborhoods that become AirBnB traps with many units
being turned essentially into mini hotels.)

The valuations are insane, so it looks like these companies are here to stay.
It will be interesting to watch.

~~~
hyp0
Sounds right, esp for hotels. Though taxis are already distributed and on-
demand. Just regulated centrally.

Deregulation is pretty common: banking, utilities (electricity, gas,
telecommunications), railways, jails. States get a phenomenal one-off
budgetary windfall from sale of infrastructure assets, and buyers get a
government mandated toll-bridge - _everybody_ wins! Though more governmental
than "societal" as I previously described it.

Governments aren't driving hotel/taxi deregulation, but the hard-won legal and
admin expertise to do it is sitting around with nothing to do...

------
illumen
Controversy based PR works.

~~~
ajitk
Streisand effect works on its own!

