Why isn't Uber regulated as a taxi service?

[Ruken]

@Shalmanese

When I perform a street hail, I have no choice as to what provider I’m contracting to, I have no power to perform price negotiations and if I choose not to take a hail, it’s a huge annoyance to the driver. Thus, it makes sense for the government to regulate a common standard of service that includes things like fixed pricing across all street hails, rules around who you’re not allowed to reject and car and driver standards.

When I’m booking a car for a later engagement, I do get to choose the provider, compare prices and negotiate terms directly. In this case, the free market can be relied on to weed out poor business practices due to competitive pressure. This is why the livery market has always been less regulated than the taxi market. (most people don’t even know livery services exist though and they’ve traditionally called taxi companies for livery style services).

This is the GQ answer. Uber provides hired cars. In some places those are considered taxis, but in most places I’ve lived they are not.

[Ruken]

@Broomstick

These sorts of things are an issue - taxis can only charge one price for a particular ride no matter what the demand is, but Uber/Lyft can increase the price significantly during high demand. So that’s one area where consumers might not get a better deal with the new services.

Price controls harm consumers by creating scarcity. See the harm caused by price gauging laws during natural disasters.

[Smapti]

@Ruken

Price controls harm consumers by creating scarcity. See the harm caused by price gauging laws during natural disasters.

And what of the harm done to consumers when the price is quadrupled during a terrorist attack?

[Broomstick]

@Deeg

If the price starts to go up during peak hours then more people will want to become U/L drivers which will lower the price. That makes it more convenient for everybody plus some people get to make some extra money.

And just how fast does someone become an Uber driver? If you are needing a ride RIGHT NOW will a new driver magically appear to drive the price down RIGHT NOW… or does that change you talk about take weeks, months, years…

@Cheesesteak

Standing on a street corner in the rain for 20 minutes waiting for an unoccupied cab to come by isn’t good for passengers either.

No, it’s not, and I’ve long thought many areas could use more cabs.

There is a healthy middle ground between having the same price and massive shortages of service and gouging the hell out of people just because you can. A manageable premium that drives sufficient supply is not all bad.

^ This.

There is a middle ground but it usually requires some rule everyone has to obey. I’m in favor of loosening regs on regular cabs, but I also think Uber/Lyft/etc. need to have a little more oversight than they do.

[Ruken]

@Smapti

And what of the harm done to consumers when the price is quadrupled during a terrorist attack?

An excellent way to increase supply and move more people.

[bengangmo]

Highlighting what’s wrong or inefficient in existing taxi services really doesn’t answer the question.

Round here, we have certain minimum requirements for taxi drivers (or hire car drivers) that I happen to agree with and support

Some things to think about though for Uber

1. NO insurance company here offers insurance for private vehicles used on a “for hire” basis - whether that be something like Uber, a private limosuine of any sort or even a private car being used as a courier. I happen to agree with this - I don’t want a taxi by any other name to be included in my risk pool. So what happens when there’s an accident involving an Uber car? Either your hope the insurance company doesn’t find out, our you’re shit outta luck

2. Taxi vehicles are held to a higher standard of safety inspection and maintenance than regular vehicles - something else I think is good - you’re being paid to transport people, I think there’s a definite advantage to enhanced safety standards

3. Taxi drivers are licensed and tested on basic competence, city knowledge and are expected to demonstrate good driving skills - something else I think is good. They are also tested for basic knowledge of English - which to me is a reasonable expectation in a “hire service” of this nature

4. Taxi companies have certain safety (number of accidents) standards they are expected to adhere to - or their licence is lost - something else that I think is good - to make sure the company / its drivers are driving responsibly

5. Taxi drivers are checked for criminal record etc - basic safety of passengers, something else that Uber does not do well - after all - I could apply for an Uber license and then pass my phone to my cousin right? This is regulated much more strongly in “proper” taxi companies (although it is still possible)

6. The meters in taxi companies are checked, and there is a dispute resolution process backed by law / taxi regulation - Uber sidesteps this totally and leaves it in the civil realm which is not good for passengers.

All in all - so far around here, Uber has established its market and is doing well - I am waiting for those two or three cases that will blow everything up. So far there’s been nothing worse than a couple of cases of overcharging -

I think the most likely is the inevitable insurance claim problem from an Uber driver…
It’s bound to happen, and it will be messy

[Shalmanese]

@Amateur_Barbarian

Okay, I won’t argue further. Maybe it is time that a truly improved and motivated breed of humans replaces the trogs who have done the tedious, grinding, dangerous, low-paid job for the last 100 years. Mixing in smartphones will completely change all of that, and unlimited competition can only be an improvement. Let’s see how it all runs in a few years when that competition has ground rates down to barely-profitable levels and the bright entrepreneurial sprogs have all moved on to the latest liberating tech innovation.

The drivers are indeed reverting to the mean which anyone who thinks too closely about it, should expect. The people who signed up for uber in the early days with promise of 90K jobs and who financed new cars as a result of it are the real losers.

At the end of the day though, uber largely doesn’t care about the human driver side of the business because they have their eyes on a larger prize: self driving cars. Self driving cars are going to happen at some point and they intrinsically work on a rental model, not an ownership model. Whoever wins the self-driving car race is going to be as rich as Croesus. That’s why Uber basically plundered an entire CMU robotics lab to build out their research wing.

If it’s any consolation to taxi drivers, they were going to be disrupted anyway, it’s just happening a few years before schedule.

[iiandyiiii]

@Amateur_Barbarian

Fair warning, if it isn’t already clear: I’ve found that most of these “brand new, completely different, by REAL people for all the people, f*ck thuh Man” alternatives that blithely dismiss rules, regulations, licensing, insurance and common sense tend to work on wishing real hard and pretending a lot of hard realities don’t exist. Most find out otherwise and either fold or become a virtual copy of what they set out to replace, because the original was like that because of decades of trial-and-error shaping.

I’m sure many are like this. In my experience Uber provides equal (or better) service at a significantly better price. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that Uber is more dangerous to the public than other taxis. I understand that it sucks for many taxi drivers and companies that there is a new service that may be providing equal or better service, equal safety (by my understanding), and lower prices, but that’s not a valid reason to restrict Uber – taxi drivers can become Uber drivers if they want (and many do).

Why wouldn’t I support Uber? How is an American city with Uber worse or more dangerous than an American city without Uber (as it exists now)?

ETA: And every one of these new-world services or ideas works perfectly… as long as it’s only a limited set of true believers involved. So scaling it up to the real world is trivial, right?

Some of these ideas may actually stick around and work. Sometimes new ideas do that. Sometimes the old way actually wasn’t perfectly shaped, and can actually be improved.

[JRDelirious]

@Broomstick

There is a middle ground but it usually requires some rule everyone has to obey. I’m in favor of loosening regs on regular cabs, but I also think Uber/Lyft/etc. need to have a little more oversight than they do.

Exactly. If “organized transportation for hire” is to be a regulated public service, then should be *all *a regulated public service… where some of the regulations should be universal – but at the same time others should be adjusted appropriately to the service being provided, not designed to make the other service impossible.

Were I the holder of a Taxi fleet franchise, back as soon as they announced Uber I’d have been hiring some consultant to design “iYellow” or “CheckerApp”.

[jz78817]

I’d be a little more sympathetic to Uber if they weren’t out-and-out lying about what they do. They like to call it a “ride sharing” service but that would mean they’re matching riders with drivers who were going to (or past) the same destination already. I’d be shocked if that was the actual case even 10% of the time. If Uber drivers are driving to a destination specifically because a rider requested it, then they’re operating as taxis full stop. No amount of “we’re disruptive/revolutionary/yeah but our way is done through a smartphone app” tech-sector bullshit will change that.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@iiandyiiii

How is an American city with Uber worse or more dangerous than an American city without Uber (as it exists now)?

We’ve been through this already: there are substantial liability concerns with Uber, because nobody is quite sure whether they are vicariously liable for injuries caused by their drivers, and the drivers’ personal policies will (1) probably be pretty iffy, and (2) probably not cover commercial use.

If you get run over by an Uber driver, you might feel differently about the issue.

Granted, we are talking about catastrophic consequences for a very small fraction of the population versus a small benefit to much of the remainder. The fact remains that we don’t fall on the Uber side of that calculus in most situations relating to road use. Commercial drivers of every kind must carry more insurance and are subject to more regulation than Uber drivers.

[Shalmanese]

@JRDelirious

Exactly. If “organized transportation for hire” is to be a regulated public service, then should be *all *a regulated public service… where some of the regulations should be universal – but at the same time others should be adjusted appropriately to the service being provided, not designed to make the other service impossible.

Were I the holder of a Taxi fleet franchise, back as soon as they announced Uber I’d have been hiring some consultant to design “iYellow” or “CheckerApp”.

It exists, it’s called Flywheel and cabs get something like 50% of their business from it now.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Flywheel only operates in a handful of cities (big markets, admittedly) on the West Coast.

There’s another problem with Uber: they lie about things.

[iiandyiiii]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

We’ve been through this already: there are substantial liability concerns with Uber, because nobody is quite sure whether they are vicariously liable for injuries caused by their drivers, and the drivers’ personal policies will (1) probably be pretty iffy, and (2) probably not cover commercial use.

If you get run over by an Uber driver, you might feel differently about the issue.

Granted, we are talking about catastrophic consequences for a very small fraction of the population versus a small benefit to much of the remainder. The fact remains that we don’t fall on the Uber side of that calculus in most situations relating to road use. Commercial drivers of every kind must carry more insurance and are subject to more regulation than Uber drivers.

This sounds like a reasonable concern. Since I have really enjoyed using Uber, I hope they’re able to resolve it in a way that still allows it to exist in a similar form to its current form.

Perhaps the big company Uber can get a catastrophe-covering insurance policy and charge their drivers a small surcharge to each ride to cover it? Or something like this?

[Donnerwetter]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

There’s another problem with Uber: they lie about things.

Oh, the humanity! I hope that being untruthful doesn’t catch on the world of business!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@iiandyiiii

Perhaps the big company Uber can get a catastrophe-covering insurance policy and charge their drivers a small surcharge to each ride to cover it? Or something like this?

They did, but they aren’t actually admitting liability and we don’t know whether that coverage is primary.

@Donnerwetter

Oh, the humanity! I hope that being untruthful doesn’t catch on the world of business!

If you went to work at a commission-based job based on a promise that the average salesperson earns X, and found out that not only is that figure not average but more than any salesperson earns, I doubt you would wave your hands in mock outrage.

This is not like a company claiming that their product is the best ever, or something; it’s outright fraud.

[Duckster]

WASHINGTON, DC, June 17 (Reuters) - A San Francisco-based driver for ride-hailing service Uber is an employee, according to a ruling by the California Labor Commission. The ruling earlier this month and filed Tuesday in state court in San Francisco, said Uber is “involved in every aspect of the operation.” Uber has argued its drivers are contractors, not employees.

Uber Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors, California Labor Commission Rules | HuffPost Life

Now we see what happens next.

[Learjeff]

@Amateur_Barbarian

If you don’t understand the economics and civic benefits of limiting the number of taxi licenses, you don’t understand enough about the business to have an opinion. Seriously.

Unlimited licenses lead entirely to negatives - for the city, for the industry and for riders. Like liquor stores and bars, it is NOT an industry you want sorting itself out in a “free market.”

Please explain.

[jz78817]

from the HuffPo link:

That could affect its valuation, currently above $40 billion,

my ass.

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

@Amateur_Barbarian

Fair warning, if it isn’t already clear: I’ve found that most of these “brand new, completely different, by REAL people for all the people, f*ck thuh Man” alternatives that blithely dismiss rules, regulations, licensing, insurance and common sense tend to work on wishing real hard and pretending a lot of hard realities don’t exist. Most find out otherwise and either fold or become a virtual copy of what they set out to replace, because the original was like that because of decades of trial-and-error shaping.

A lot of people – most of them difficult to distinguish from libertarians – seem to think all regulation is only rent-seeking. And I’m sure some regulation is mostly that, and much regulation is partly that, but regulation can also help serve the legitimate public interest. It’s like the joke about cryptocurrency being an object lesson in why financial regulations exist. Uber and Lyft and their ilk are sooner or later going to be, if they aren’t already, an object lesson in why taxi regulations exist.

I have a feeling at least some fleets of self-driving cars will operate on something closer to the ZipCar model, anyway.