Uber

[Mise]

As others have said, I'm in two minds. I won't repeat what others have said. Where I'm at right now is:

1) Are taxis over-regulated? If so, we should regulate them less.
2) Are taxi regulations/licensing a means of restricting the supply of taxis, therefore artificially inflating prices and maintaining a monopoly over taxis? (c.f. unions/professional associations/guilds etc.) If so, we should loosen the licensing regime to increase supply.
3) Uber are definitely a taxi service and should be regulated to protect consumers. If such regulation reduces supply then that's fine: it's a necessary complexity in order to provide adequate protection for the consumer.

Anyway, that's where I'm at, and if we had answers to 1) and 2) then there would be no rational controversy over Uber. EDIT: It's the same with AirBnb, the wesbite I use to rent out my parking space, and other similar services. Economically, at their core, they are tapping into underutilisation and providing a marketplace for excess capacity. It's not worlds apart from Ebay. But they are nonetheless marketplaces, and there ought to be rules around how parties conduct themselves on that market place.

 

[Commodore]

As others have said, I'm in two minds. I won't repeat what others have said. Where I'm at right now is:

1) Are taxis over-regulated? If so, we should regulate them less.
2) Are taxi regulations/licensing a means of restricting the supply of taxis, therefore artificially inflating prices and maintaining a monopoly over taxis? (c.f. unions/professional associations/guilds etc.) If so, we should loosen the licensing regime to increase supply.
3) Uber are definitely a taxi service and should be regulated to protect consumers. If such regulation reduces supply then that's fine: it's a necessary complexity in order to provide adequate protection for the consumer.

Anyway, that's where I'm at, and if we had answers to 1) and 2) then there would be no rational controversy over Uber. EDIT: It's the same with AirBnb, the wesbite I use to rent out my parking space, and other similar services. Economically, at their core, they are tapping into underutilisation and providing a marketplace for excess capacity. It's not worlds apart from Ebay. But they are nonetheless marketplaces, and there ought to be rules around how parties conduct themselves on that market place.

I don't think you can reasonably classify and regulate services like Uber the same way you would a traditional taxi service, because there really are some fundamental differences in how the two operate. Thankfully, California seems to have recognized this and created a new service category by which services like Uber can be regulated.

The definition of a TNC was created by the California Public Utilities Commission in 2013, as a result of a rulemaking process around new and previously unregulated forms of transportation. Prior to the definition, the commission had attempted to group TNC services in the same category as limousines.[4] Taxi industry groups opposed the creation of the new category, arguing that TNCs are taking away their business as illegal taxicab operations

Wikipedia page

The page also states much more simply than I can why TNCs are fundamentally different from conventional taxi services and, thus should not be subject to the same regulations:

The services of transportation network companies can be in demand because of the convenience of requesting a ride by a mobile app, the satisfaction of being able to have experience monitored by the company as a third party, and because of competitive pricing for services.[7] Taxicabs can provide similar services, but while most cities require companies which provide taxicabs to meet requirements for business, transportation network companies may be exempt from such requirements due to their only providing a marketplace and not actually employing drivers or keeping automobiles.

The main difference of course being that a conventional taxi company provides both the marketplace and the service itself with its own drivers and fleet of vehicles; whereas a TNC only provides the marketplace.

 

[innonimatu]

See, I don't think Uber should be subject to the same regulations as a taxi company since they don't actually hire any drivers or maintain their own fleet of vehicles. In fact, the only service they provide is the app.

But someone has to bear the responsibility (and cost) of providing service according to those regulation. Insurance and safety regulations are important. If not Uber, then whom? Which least me directly to answer to your next question...

And what do you have against Uber anyway? I see it as a great solution for the long-term unemployed (which is a problem here in the US) to earn some money and keep the bills paid until they can find a better job.

If Uber is not hiring anyone or paying for cars, training, insurance or regulatory compliance, what exactly does it contribute to the business of its drivers? What does Uber do that can't be done on a local (city-wide) level with a competing app/web site?

And that is exactly what the cab companies are doing: going online and providing those extra services. Plus they have the advantages of already being present on the locations, knowing them thoroughly, doing all those things which Uber won't do (paying for cars, training, insurance or regulatory compliance). That's the hard stull, the expensive stuff. What Ubed does is easy and is being done by others easily.

There are businesses where economies of scale favor concentration because through concentration costs will be lower (anything involving manufacture in mass production), of because close coordination between many separate components of an economic activity is necessary (power production because they require a shared grid could be an example, airlines might be another example).
Cabs are the example of the opposite thing. Each location, each city has its own idiosyncrasy. And coordination between them is not necessary. There were never in free-market countries (or any countries that I know of) nation-wide cab companies and there is a simple reason for that: they'd be uneconomical.
"The web" isn't changing that. Uber based its competitive advantage on two things: availability of networked applications to call and track cars (easily done by others), and evading regulations to cut costs (they're not going to be allowed to get away with that for much longer).

If those two advantages are crossed out there is only one way for a ride using Uber to be cheaper than cabs, and that is Uber drivers operating with a loss. Through hidden costs: whether depreciation of their own cars at a rate they're not covering with their income from the "job", or by working without actually taking out a living wage after costs are deduced. Remember, perfect competition increases supply until marginal costs equals the price buyers are willing to pay. In Uber's business model the earnings of their drivers are a cost and the only one they will squeeze once they are forced to follow regulations.
It's not a solution to unemployment. It's a trap. Once competition gets though their drivers will be stuck with hidden costs and still be willing to work because they'll be seeing some cash flow, and most people don't do the math on depreciation and costs of risk. Once a driver is run into personal bankruptcy he'll just be replaced with another from a very large pool of available and desperate people. Yes, that might work for Uber. Won't work out well for their drivers, though.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Uber is failing so hard on many european cities, where it can't even compete on price with traditional cab, that I wonder what is wrong with US cabs. And having a convenient phone app for calling a car, geolocaton and so on, is already being done by those cab services. It's so easy to set up such a system that this renders what Uber provides unnecessary, making it basically a leech for value. On a level market (i.e., if they don't exploit evasions of regulations such as running without paying insurance, and where cab licences are not outrageously expensive) their "drivers" can't compete on price.

Uber is also getting legally challenged in many cities/countries, but that is only the natural consequence of trying to evade said regulations with the sorry excuse of "we're a digital company".

Th Taxi Medallion system in most major US cities is a big part of the problem. The city government issues only a finite number of taxi licenses, and in some places has not issued more in decades despite the population more then doubling. Rather than having a set of standards that everyone must meet and a nominal fee paid annually to the government for license renewal, the medallions permitting one to work as a cabbie indefinitely are an artificially scarce good that may be traded on the open market. In most cities, they go for more than $100,000. In New York City, they cost more than $2,000,000. The actual drivers of course cannot afford to purchase the permit that would let them start their own taxi service. The system is used by large corporations to crush any possible competition, especially competition from their own employees who might quit if they had the means to do so.



Quite a few taxi drivers have opted to work for Lyft or Uber instead, but there are still plenty who prefer the stability of working fr an employer, who aren't tech savvy enough, who cannot afford to buy their own vehicle (which must be less than 10 years old), or who just really hate the idea of competition reducing their wages.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't think you can reasonably classify and regulate services like Uber the same way you would a traditional taxi service, because there really are some fundamental differences in how the two operate. Thankfully, California seems to have recognized this and created a new service category by which services like Uber can be regulated.

If I am not mistaken, most Amsterdam taxi companies do not have their own taxi fleets, but rather function as a taxi drivers guild of sorts that imposes minimum standards and require royalty payments in exchange for being able to bear their trademarks and be approached under that name. Basically, they are already like Uber except that they do not rely on apps.

 

[tetley]

Uber seems to make sense for long trips, i.e. >30km. And for big events like concerts, sports, fireworks displays, conventions, and such. Or for regular commuters. Or for tourist hubs, like airports and cruise ship terminals. If you build a big database of people, you are more likely to match people who are going more-or-less to the same places, and they can carpool and share gas, toll roads, hov lanes and such. Business travellers can do wifi while someone else drives.

 

[Mise]

Yeah, I'm with Kaiserguard: I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference between the way taxis (or minicabs in London - "black cabs" work differently) work and the way uber works. Biggest difference is just that, for uber drivers, it probably isn't their primary source of income. Minicab drivers own their vehicles and aren't paid by the company but pay a commission to the booking company (i.e. the company takes a cut). I don't see how this is any different from how Uber works: the minicab companies and uber have pretty much an identical business model. A lot of minicab companies have their own apps and websites and everything, so for the consumer there is no difference either. Minicab drivers have to be registered with Transport for London, which requires a basic orientation test and some criminal background checks, but it isn't overly onerous from what I can tell. Their cars probably have to get extra safety checks and stuff, but again, this is all to protect consumers. I don't see how using an uber car isn't just the same as getting in an unlicensed minicab...

 

[Zelig]

availability of networked applications to call and track cars (easily done by others)

It's not that easy... can you link me a competing application by any traditional taxi company available across iOS/Android/WinPhone and with comparable reviews (or other relevant metric of app quality - all the local apps that I've tried here are garbage) to the Uber app?

 

[Smote]

I'm a fan. Let the superior business win out, with a government safety net to make sure no individual suffers too much.

 

[Mise]

@Zelig: The Addison Lee one is pretty good. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.haulmont.shamrock.android

 

[downtown]

I've used it before, and I appreciate the flexibility, but I stopped because 1) I think there are major safety concerns that aren't being addressed, since these drivers aren't being properly background checked, and 2) their owner is a major league arsehole and I hate supporting companies like that if I can avoid it.

I don't hate the concept, but this isn't okay: http://valleywag.gawker.com/another-uber-driver-stands-accused-of-sexually-assaulti-1612258968

 

[Zelig]

I don't hate the concept, but this isn't okay: http://valleywag.gawker.com/another-uber-driver-stands-accused-of-sexually-assaulti-1612258968

Yeah, it's not okay, but numbers-wise, I haven't really seen anything to suggest that Uber is actually better or worse than traditional taxi companies in this respect.


http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/87...ts-drop-but-some-drivers-still-up-to-no-good/

Calgary, for year of 2013: "Four of the complaints involved accusations of sexual assault, one driver was actually caught using his cab to transport illicit drugs and four others were accused of driving impaired while off the clock."

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/taxi-driver-gets-2-years-for-sex-assault-on-passenger-1.790544

Victoria: "A Vancouver Island taxi driver who took an extremely drunk passenger back to his apartment and sexually assaulted her has been sentenced to nearly two years in jail."

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/montreal/story/1.2795108

Montreal, 2013: "Last year, Lafrenière​ said, Montreal police investigated 29 cases of sexual assault involving taxi drivers."

Montreal, 2014 to October: "Montreal police now say they are investigating 17 cases of sexual assaults in taxis for this year alone."

 

[Smote]

Then there's the surge prices: http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle...-surge-durham-man-455-halloween.html?page=all

 

[Mise]

I have no problem charging more during peak periods, but the price has to be stated clearly before you agree to the purchase. That's just basic consumer protection law. I don't even think there needs to be specific regulations targeting Uber or other modern taxi models: surely this would be illegal in the UK under existing consumer protection laws.

Uber can't have it both ways. Either its prices are plainly stated like a normal business, or they are hidden but regulated by the government.

 

[bhsup]

Do all of these drivers have commercial driver's licenses? It is a commercial service, after all, so they really should be required to have a commercial driver's license before they can engage in this practice.

They should get no, none, nada, zilch, zip coddling. If taxis are required to adhere to a particular local ordinance, then so should Uber/Lyft/etc. If people thin kthe local ordinance is unfair, repeal it entirely, but until that is done, apply it equally to all taxi services, which is clearly what these things are.


(Don't even bring up "hey, split the gas with me buddy" crap that you might do with a friend on a road trip to even be like this. You know it isn't and I'll just ignore any reply that tries to compare it)

 

[MagisterCultuum]

A Commercial Driver's License is not required for all commercial services. It is not even needed for Taxi drivers, much less Uber.

A commercial driver's license (CDL) is a driver's license required in the United States to operate any type of vehicle weighing more than 10,001 lb (4536 kg) for commercial use, or transports quantities of hazardous materials that require warning placards under Department of Transportation regulations, or that is designed to transport 9 or more passengers (including driver) for compensation, or 16 or more passengers (including the driver), for noncompensation. This includes, but is not limited to, tow trucks, tractor trailers, and buses.1

Local regulations like requiring Taxi medallions are clearly unjust laws, and so should be ignored or disobeyed just like the Fugitive Slave Acts or modern immigration laws.

 

[bhsup]

It is needed for taxi drivers in Missouri. I don't give two spits for the other 49 states or other parts of the world as I don't live there and how they deal with Uber/Lyft/etc is not my concern nor care.

http://www.dmv.org/mo-missouri/special-licenses.php

Obtaining a Class E License

You must obtain a Class E license if you receive pay for driving a motor vehicle that transports 14 passengers or less, or if you transport items as part of your job. This rule applies to workers such as messengers, taxi drivers, chauffeurs, shuttle bus drivers, pizza delivery drivers, and day-care-center employees, to name a few.

And just so you know, comparing taxi regulations to slavery laws pretty much invalidates your opinion.


EDIT: Apologies on the license in that my use of the word "commercial" was probably out of place. I just mean "commercial" as in not private, not a CDL specifically. That's on me.

 

[Zelig]

(Don't even bring up "hey, split the gas with me buddy" crap that you might do with a friend on a road trip to even be like this. You know it isn't and I'll just ignore any reply that tries to compare it)

Well splitting the gas is silly.

Gas is only about a quarter of my cost of driving - my buddy covers the gas, I cover the maintenance/depreciation and they should still be thanking me for driving and paying three times more than them.

If you want to drive, I'll gladly cover the entire gas cost for a reasonably fuel efficient vehicle for the same use.

 

[madviking]

And it really isn't fare that Uber drivers skip all the red light bureaucracy that real taxis companies/drivers have to go through, which I assume are costly.

sorry but i couldn't help but to notice this freudian slip.

i haven't had a need to use uber but certainly their reputation has been stained a bit from the prior incidents regarding their drivers. if uber and the government could come to some sort of compromise and acknowledge that the medallion system is unfair but acknowledge the fact that taxi/uber drivers should be held to a higher standard than drivers at large, i wouldn't have a problem with that. the problem is that i'm not sure whether the two parties will budge on either point, particularly the government, since they can, as they have done, just ban uber from their jurisdiction.

 

[Zelig]

sorry but i couldn't help but to notice this freudian slip.

i haven't had a need to use uber but certainly their reputation has been stained a bit from the prior incidents regarding their drivers. if uber and the government could come to some sort of compromise and acknowledge that the medallion system is unfair but acknowledge the fact that taxi/uber drivers should be held to a higher standard than drivers at large, i wouldn't have a problem with that. the problem is that i'm not sure whether the two parties will budge on either point, particularly the government, since they can, as they have done, just ban uber from their jurisdiction.

I'd rather just hold drivers at large to any applicable higher standard and ban poor drivers from driving at all.