
Getting Over Taxis - waffle_ss
https://medium.com/@timoreilly/getting-over-taxis-79849b3a4282
======
sandworm101
Get over cabs? I like uber, but when I'm traveling on business there are some
things Uber cannot provide me, things I want.

(1) When I get off a plane in a strange city my phone doesn't always work, and
if it does I probably don't get data. The taxi stand outside an airport is
convenient, identifiable, and works reliably no matter the state of my phone.

(2) I don't want a ride from someone in their personal car. I want an easily-
recognizable vehicle driven by a person licensed by some sort of local
authority. I want a visible number or other identifier on the outside of the
vehicle.

(3) Professional detachment. Uber rides often take an overly-friendly tone. I
like chatting with drivers, but I often don't want to chat. Maybe I'm on the
phone with a client, maybe I have a client traveling with me. I don't want to
feel bad or be down-rated if I don't act friendly.

(4) Local knowledge. A professional cabbie will, within a few weeks, develop
some serious local knowledge about streets, hotels and restaurants. With Uber
drivers it is hit and miss.

When it comes to business travel, especially international travel, cabs still
provide value uber cannot match.

~~~
ageek123
(1) has never happened to me in a US city, and very rarely in non-US cities.
(2) has never bothered me because Uber keeps a log of every ride I take, the
rating system gives me a much more confidence in the driver than a random
government licensing scheme, and the app tells me the license plate number so
the vehicle is easily-recognizable. (3) has never happened to me -- you may be
thinking of one of the other ridesharing services where driver and customer
are considered peers. (4) presupposes the taxi driver speaks English well
enough to communicate their "serious local knowledge" which IME is indeed "hit
and miss."

~~~
sandworm101
When I land in SF, if I haven't purchased any plan ahead of time, my rate 5$
per MEGAbyte. That is IF my phone actually works, which is probably 90% for
outgoing and 50/50 for receiving incoming calls. Canadian ISPs are horrible,
but we don't have much choice. Since Uber relies on having a working phone it
cannot rise above that horrible bar. Taxis don't require any working
technology.

My "plan": [http://business.telus.com/en/business/bc/business-travel-
roa...](http://business.telus.com/en/business/bc/business-travel-roaming/us-
roam-ready)

~~~
kjksf
I don't think transportation services should be optimized for Canadians With
Expensive Data Plans That Landed In SFO.

If you land at SFO you have an array of transportation services. Taxis are
still there. You can take BART. There are shuttles. You can rent a car.

For most people Uber is better than a taxi.

~~~
sandworm101
I never said that Uber should go away. I am pointing out that neither are
Taxis, that they are two different services for two different markets. Taxis
provide things that uber cannot, one cannot totally replace the other.

As for airports not optimizing transport for Canadians, airports should do
exactly that. Any city wanting to be a business hub should indeed try to
accommodate international travelers. And they all do. If canadians have a
rough time at a US airport, I think it safe to assume the Chinese, Japanese,
Arab or Indian business traveler will have it worse.

Car rental is not an option for many international travelers. Licensing issues
mean most will never bother. BART is great, but it isn't for the uninitiated
traveler on a dark night. The routing is not intuitive. And it is really loud,
not a pleasant experience after a long flight.

------
idibidiart
Some comments here mention "AI driving the car" being the end game. I can't
help but wonder what happens when a self driving car gets hacked, doors locked
(unlocking disabled) and driven off a cliff.

Self driving cars will be magical and transformative but we don't really know
what will happen. It may end up requiring a human co-driver to take over in
case the algorithm misbehaves. So I do hope that self driving cars will come
with regulation that mandates the presence of a licensed driver with ability
to take over the manual controls.

Update: Here is a small sample of articles about "non-hackable" systems
getting hacked...

[1] Nuclear power plants: [http://www.dailydot.com/politics/industrial-
ethernet-switche...](http://www.dailydot.com/politics/industrial-ethernet-
switche..). [2] air-gapped computers:
[http://www.wired.com/2015/07/researchers-hack-air-gapped-
com...](http://www.wired.com/2015/07/researchers-hack-air-gapped-com..). [3]
autopilots: [http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475081/cybercrime-
hack...](http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475081/cybercrime-hack..).
reply

~~~
kjksf
Google prototypes have a big, red stop button that, I assume, takes precedence
over hackable software.

Similarly, it's easy to not have door unlocking connected to hackable
software.

In general, I find hacking worries unwarranted.

Sure, cars from car manufacturers were hacked because car manufacturers are
bad at writing software and are bad at security.

Google is good at software and they are top-notch on security. They have been
fighting hacking of their web services from day one, they employ world class
cryptographers and security researchers. They are also aware that if their
cars were hacked, it would be a very bad PR.

Requiring licensed driver would significantly hamper adoption of self-driving
cars not to mention cutting off people who need such service the most (e.g.
old people who are no longer fit for driving; disabled people; drunk people
etc.)

~~~
avar

        > Google prototypes have a big, red stop button that,
        > I assume, takes precedence over hackable software.
    

You think so? I would assume not. I doubt the car is just going to screech to
a halt via some hardware switch, think about the danger of someone pressing
that while in the center lane of a highway.

Instead it's probably synonymous with giving the software a "stop now"
command. I.e. it would know to safely pull over to the side of the road, or
take the next off-ramp in that situation.

So if someone had hacked the driving software that could be overridden.

I do think idibidiart is being overly alarmist. Self-driving cars don't have
to be perfect, and there could certainly be malicious hacking incidents, but
they're highly likely to outnumber the cases where people die now due to
imperfect human drivers.

~~~
idibidiart
I agree there is more benefit than harm, but I doubt any self-driving car will
be legal without a manual override... if at least for national security
reasons.

------
aluhut
CTRL+F insurance

2 results. Right at the beginning. Nothing more.

The main problem with Uber in Germany was the insurance. Fix that. Try again.

I think there is a market now but that one will be gone fast as soon as we
have the AI driving.

~~~
legulere
Also you need a special drivers license [1], that needs to get renewed every 5
years and entails that you are mentally and physically fit (checked by a
doctor) and know much about the region you're going to drive in (checked in a
test). They also want to see your criminal record and traffic offense
register.

[1]:
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Führerschein_zur_Fahrgastbeför...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Führerschein_zur_Fahrgastbeförderung)

~~~
aluhut
The Ortskundeprüfung ("local knowledge test" = learn a ton of street names) is
the only problematic part of it and it needs to be reformed away.

------
ThomPete
I like Uber as a consumer but I simply don't understand why people as smart as
even o'reily defend their business despite them knowing the end game.

Their main goal of Uber is to replace all their drivers with automated cars.

As a consumer that means a lot of good things but not for those who was
depending on it as an income. There is a dishonesty either to other people or
to themselves that I simply don't get here.

~~~
omginternets
>Their main goal of Uber is to replace all their drivers with automated cars.

Yeah, that's _why_ we're in favor of Uber.

~~~
ThomPete
Thats fine then just don't talk about how it's better for the uber drivers.

~~~
omginternets
1\. You're confusing the author's position with my own. I don't claim (and
frankly don't care) whether or not taxi drivers get a better deal than Uber
drivers. The reason I don't care is that taxi service is terrible, and I
consider each taxi ride I've taken to be just shy of theft ... and this in
NYC, Philly, Paris, Rome, Lyon, Atlanta, Le Mans, Berlin, Moscow, Abu Dhabi,
Bejing and literally every place in the world where I've had the misfortune of
hailing a cab.

2\. You're categorically insane if you think taxi drivers will survive the
arrival of driverless cars. Until that happens, the author's points may well
hold.

~~~
ThomPete
1) I am not confusing anything. You said "we're" unless you talk about
yourself in plural. I have had my fare share of cabs around the world too. To
claim normal taxi in any normal city is terrible is absurd and just an attempt
to pump up your position as being more rational than it is.

I don't care who gets a better deal either I just know that both solutions of
upsides and downsides thats it. Coming out in defence for one or the other
based on what O'reily does is where it goes wrong.

2) Why the strawman? Where did I ever claim such a thing?

~~~
omginternets
No, point 2 is not a strawman. Your argument implied that Uber would be
affected by automation, but taxis would not.

If you're willing to admit that both services are affected by automation, then
your point about Uber welcoming automation is a red herring.

Moreover, the article is a rebuttal to an argument that says "Uber = bad,
because it treats the drivers unfairly". As such, evidence to the contrary
invalidates that argument, _even_ if one doesn't particularly care about
driver pay.

~~~
ThomPete
Uber hire drivers as freelancers but treat them as employers.

\- Uber drivers can't hire people to drive for them.

\- Uber drivers can't decide which car they want to use.

\- Uber drivers can't decide the price they are charging their customers.

\- Uber discourages tipping.

\- Uber doesn't pay for their healthcare.

Thats not a clear case of anything. Thats the opening of an important debate
because it points to some underlying issues with society and technology that
needs to be debated much more seriously than simply yelling "Luddite fallacy"
and what people otherwise like to brush aside any concern about the speed of
technology vs. societies ability to cope with it.

------
CodeWriter23
The author's calculations about how much it costs to make the payments on a
car are flawed. Driving for Uber full time, your car won't last as long as the
loan. Based on my experience driving for Lyft and Uber last year, you can
figure about 5-7K miles per month for a full-time driver.

------
coderdude
I use Uber almost every day. I love it. I also like vending machines. I hope
that one day my Uber rides will be entirely like interacting with vending
machines.

------
omginternets
Susan Crawford's argument seems to hinge on taxis being transportation
infrastructure, which is well-taken in and of itself, but her conclusions
don't follow her premise.

If taxi service is such a vital component of transportation infrastructure,
then the solution is to make it public. This would address all her concerns
about driver exploitation while also preventing another company from
undercutting the established infrastructure.

If you're in favor of private taxi services, it's hard to be against
Uber/Lyft.

