
Uber to Portland: We’re Here. Deal with It - santaclaus
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/uber-to-portland-were-here-deal-with-it
======
oconnor663
"In Portland, the commissioner in charge of the city’s Bureau of
Transportation was furious enough at Uber that he suggested Portland should
amend its regulations to allow Lyft — one of Uber’s biggest competitors —
instead of Uber, to operate in the city."

This is basically admitting that the whole "for the safety of the consumer"
thing is an act. This is not the reaction of a man who actually thinks taxi
regulations are needed.

~~~
ChuckFrank
That's not his point. His point was a) Uber and Lyft are illegal and b) if we
were to let this happen, he would personally want the team that was good
negotiating partners, as opposed to the thugs and a*holes on the other team.

(edited for proper pronoun use.)

~~~
carsongross
What does that mean, "thugs and a##holes"? Is Uber depriving people of their
property or forcing them to do something against their will? Are they driving
around blaring unpopular music and loudly pointing out poor fashion choices?

I'm no huge fan of Uber, but when I read this story it isn't Uber that strikes
me as acting like thuggish a##holes.

~~~
edgyswingset
Rather than working with city officials and lawmakers, they're just ignoring
them and doing whatever the hell they want. That is thuggish behavior.

~~~
Dylan16807
No it's not. Thug is a term of violence.

------
ChuckFrank
I think the best-practices that can be learned here is that if you are going
into emerging territory with a technology that is challenging the regulator
limits, it's better to be the Lyft than it is to be the Uber.

In fact, I think this is one of Lyfts strategic advantage - that they aren't
Uber, and they let Uber take all the hits. The costs of those hits must be
realized somewhere in Uber (as in hiring David P.). Whereas Lyft can
essentially sit back, garner goodwill, and enter a the market as a full
competitor without expending the same resources. Now realize, that they can
only do that because Uber also exist, and Uber does some of the dirtier work.
If Lyft on it's own was trying to open new territories, they'd probably be a
bit more like Uber. But it's a good lesson in creating a competitive advantage
from unwanted competition. Kudos to Lyft for seizing that.

~~~
gooserock
Sorry, I don't buy this. You're proposing that if Uber weren't around, that
Lyft would need to act like Uber and "take all the hits." That's absolutely
not the case. Uber does not _have_ to act the way it acts. Sure, the first
company in this space is bound to run up against regulatory hurdles, but they
don't need to openly and brazenly break the law to make their point, to the
point that city officials are publicly calling them "thugs."

Sure, Uber has been talking to Portland city officials for a year, as the
article says, but what's the rush? They're in 250 other cities already, cities
a whole lot bigger than Portland. What possible motivation do they have to act
the way they do, going behind the backs of the very people they're trying to
negotiate with, operating illegally, and daring anyone to stop them?

No, that's just immaturity, arrogance, and greed.

~~~
Dylan16807
>Sorry, I don't buy this. You're proposing that if Uber weren't around, that
Lyft would need to act like Uber and "take all the hits."

Nope, that's not what the post says. It says that Lyft would probably be a
_bit_ more like Uber. That doesn't mean they'd have to flaunt the law, just
that they would have to do more negotiation themselves.

Also that they currently get the benefits of rabid regulation-fighting without
being the bad guy.

------
wyager
Although I dislike some of Uber's business practices, I really admire their
"fuck you" attitude when it comes to ignoring taxi regulations. Taxi
regulations are some of the most bullshit, customer-hurting, corrupt laws
people are exposed to on a daily basis. They're a clear example of how
overregulation can cause a precipitous drop in quality of service without
tangible benefit.

Uber, Lyft, and co. managed to realize _huge_ gains in productivity and
quality with no significant negative side effects.

~~~
ChuckFrank
The opposite is however true - completely unregulated carrier countries -
places like India -- the result is barely function death traps driven by
terrible drivers, resulting in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of
passengers every year.

Taxi regulations, bus regulations, charter van regulations are all there to
save lives and prevent a race towards the bottom economy of transportation.
And when a mother and child's only chance of getting into town in on the back
of a death machine - these regulations start to look very good indeed.

~~~
forrestthewoods
Uber seems to be doing a pretty good job of providing a quality, safe service
not just without regulations but despite them.

The regulations as they stand seem to primarily protect the entrenched
businesses, not consumers. And our current legislative does not appear to
provide any sort of reasonable mechanism to modify said regulations without
first flipping the bird and demonstrating clear, intense consumer demand.

~~~
hackyhacky
The argument that Uber is providing reasonable service despite regulations
does not justify removing them.

In a city like New York, where traditional taxi services are deeply
entrenched, Uber must provide service that is at least as good as the status
quo. The guarantees that the state enforces to protect consumers in registered
taxi services serve as baseline, and Uber knows this. If that baseline did not
exist, that is, if Uber were competing only against unregulated commercial
services, there would be a race to the bottom, and suddenly New York would
start looking a lot like Bangalore.

In this way, regulation improves things even to those who use services that
are not regulated.

~~~
forrestthewoods
What's wrong with a race to the bottom? Big corporations often run with a
profit margin of only 1 to 4 percent. That's great for consumers. Drive those
prices as low as they can go. Excellent!

People keep using the phrase "protect consumers". How, exactly? In very
precise words please. Making drivers hold appropriate insurance, excellent.
That protects me as a consumer. Having extremely constrained medallions that
cost hundreds of thousands of dollars? No, that does not protect me as a
consumer at all. Forcing Uber to do this bullshit independent driver hack also
does not protect me or provide value. It would be far superior if drivers were
regular employees of Uber but that puts them under heavy regulation which
protects established business players far, far, far more than it protects or
serves the consumer.

------
bradleyjg
Portland should seek an injunction. Let uber try that 'laws don't apply to us,
we move fast and break things' attitude with a judge. They'll quickly learn
how broad judicial contempt powers are.

~~~
stock_toaster
I am quite surprised that nothing has been brought to bear against the
company, or the management, already.

------
ignoramous
The transport industry is not well regulated in India. As a result, every
other month prices go up. So much so that the cost has doubled for some
routes. And Uber is poised to make a killing here. One example is how they
charge 100 Rupees (about $2) as 'toll fee' for rides to the Airport. The
interesting part is there is NO TOLL whatsoever if the cab is in and out
within 10mins. Even if you exceed 10 mins, the actual charge is 65 rupees
(around $1). Flat 100 Rupee charge is actually too steep when you consider
that the entire ride cost you a mere 250 Rupees excluding the toll fee.

Repeated contact with customer support at Uber is like talking to a wall. Out
of the 4 contacts I had with them, I got a response only once. They didn't
respond even when I literally BEGGED them to. In a sense you feel helpless
with these corporates with no-face and corportes that take their customers for
granted. Even though I have 1200 Rupees ($20) worth of free rides with Uber, I
have since switched to local competitors. I simply don't trust them. Esp in a
country like India where they aren't and won't be held accountable for
liabilities.

Free market / unregulated market won't do consumers any good. Uber solves a
lot of pain points and is an excellent product-- but the Government needs to
step in with newer but accommodating regulations-- perhaps an open API for
ride sharing, and a standard ride-fare API, and such. I don't see that ever
happening in India to be honest.

~~~
ChuckFrank
I agree completely. I've argued vehemently that the largest single most
visible change that we are going to see in the next 10 - 20 years is our
transportation structure. Private cars, ride sharing, valet parking,
privatized parking, elimination of public parking, driver-less cars, city
cores reoriented around public transportation hubs and cycling infrastructures
- the transportation cities of the future are going to look as different to
them, as horse and carriage cities, and manual stop lights look to us.

------
kylec
Fines are one thing, but I bet that Uber would quickly find themselves with a
manpower shortage if drivers started getting arrested. It's probably only a
matter of time before Uber provokes a city into doing just that.

~~~
craigvn
That's what the cities should be doing. They can talk tough but unless they
take action the laws will continue to be flouted.

------
pbreit
Could someone please explain to me why ride sharing is illegal and why
regulation is necessary? I'm prepared to understand but so far have not heard
such a thing articulated.

~~~
stonogo
Describing Uber as "ride sharing" is fantastically disingenuous. Have you ever
lived in a place that did not have taxi regulations? Life gets fairly hellish
that way. Drivers will pick you up and then pick other people up on the way to
your destination... often until the van is full. There's no recourse for
getting overcharged, assaulted, kicked out in the wrong place because a more
profitable fare turned up, being totally SOL because the guy got a flat tire
and does not have a support structure in place... this list goes on, and if
you think it won't happen in America, good luck in your future endeavors.

~~~
cloakandswagger
The familiar statist's mantra: That red tape is preventing all hell from
breaking loose!

I suppose if it weren't for government regulations we'd still be living in
caves and dying at age 30.

~~~
chasing
> I suppose if it weren't for government regulations we'd still be living in
> caves and dying at age 30.

Probably not, but we might be living in rickety homes, eating food that's
mainly sawdust, and working eighty hours per week for almost no money. Some of
us would still be slaves. A few of us would be fantastically wealthy and
powerful, but even they would be limited by living in a violent world
populated by uneducated and over-exploited masses incapable of doing things
like getting an education and finding their own passions that lead to
innovation, invention, and creativity.

The pleasant life you live today is due to government regulations. You know
how you can shop at the grocery store without fearing that something you buy
might literally kill you? You know the drugs you take for headaches? For
whatever ailments you have? It's nice knowing there's some science behind
those, right? Nice knowing they won't kill you, right? Speed limits? Are they
a good idea? You might be more likely to think so if you had kids and wanted
to feel safe allowing them to play outside. Flying to an awesome tech
conference anytime soon? You'd probably prefer the plane didn't drop out of
the sky, right?

Etc.

~~~
ahomescu1
> A few of us would be fantastically wealthy and powerful, but even they would
> be limited by living in a violent world populated by uneducated and over-
> exploited masses incapable of doing things like getting an education and
> finding their own passions that lead to innovation, invention, and
> creativity.

I'd like to point out that Harvard University precedes the United States by
140 years (1636 -> 1776), and the government before 1776 wasn't exactly "for
the people".

~~~
kiiski
What kind of students did Harvard have back then? Was it mainly rich upper
class people, or people from "the people" too?

~~~
ahomescu1
From
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University),
about Harvard (known then as _New College_ ):

 _Although never formally affiliated with any denomination, the early College
primarily trained Congregation­alist and Unitarian clergy._

Also notable is this list (note how many Ivies have been around since then):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Colonial_Colleges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Colonial_Colleges)

------
ArtDev
I wonder if higher Uber/taxi/Lyft usage is attributed with less drunken
drivers on the road. Probably.

------
jonsterling
God save us.

------
yogo
Uber has balls. No matter where you stand you've gotta love that.

~~~
yogo
And for you downvoting fucks, wake up and smell what real world competition is
like.

~~~
chroem-
If "real world competition" smells like harassment of journalists and
generally questionable business practices, then it sure smells awful.

~~~
ChuckFrank
Oops, I downvoted. Sorry. I agree. Having balls is not real world competition.
Being Alpha is not real world competition. Flipping the bird, and give
everyone a great big FU is not real work competition. Real world competition,
is almost every thing but those things. Again, sorry for the downvote. (I just
didn't want to encourage feeding the troll.)

