Support NeoGAF

[Ether_Snake]

Invasion of the Taxi Snatchers: Uber Leads an Industry's Disruption

They want to make owning a car completely unnecessary. They’re battling each other, city regulators, entrenched taxi interests, and critics who claim they are succeeding only because they run roughshod over laws meant to protect public safety.

[...]

“The taxi industry has been ripe for disruption for decades. But only technology has allowed it to really kick in.”

[...]

Nearly four years ago, Uber introduced the idea of allowing passengers to book the nearest town car by smartphone, then track the vehicle on a map as it approaches their location. After the ride, the service automatically compensates the driver from the customer’s preloaded credit card—no awkward tipping required.

[...]

Uber has raised $307 million from a group of backers that include Google Ventures, Google’s (GOOG) investment arm, and Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon. It operates in 70 cities around the world and was on track to book more than $1 billion annually in rides in 2013

[...]

Uber has also been blocked from operating in several markets, including Miami and Austin, Tex., by regulators out to protect the interests of consumers or entrenched incumbents, depending on whom you ask. In Boston and Chicago, taxi operators have sued their cities for allowing unregulated companies to devalue million-dollar operating permits. Things grew especially heated recently in Paris, when incensed taxi drivers shut down highway exits to the main airports and gridlocked city traffic.

When we'll have self-driven cars, it will become innevitable that the taxi industry will disappear, as cars will be able to move to destinations of high demand based on past data, ahead of time, etc. In the future, you end up with much quieter cities, fewer cards on the roads, fewer cars to produce. Vehicles will be operating almost 24/7 at near optimal capacity VS quantity, which means a much better ROI from both an economic and environmental point of view, rather than having massive amounts of cars littering the streets unused over 22 hours a day on average (if not more).

 

[Drazgul]

Yep, the pros massively outweigh the cons. Sucks if you're a taxi driver, sure, but you can't fight progress, just deal with it.

 

[Aesius]

Can't wait for driverless cars, although the technology will put a ton of people out of work.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Can't wait for driverless cars, although the technology will put a ton of people out of work.

It will reduce a lot of tax payer expenses, and imagine the savings per individual if you count how much money people spend on cars out of necessity. That means more money to spend on things they want rather than what they need, which is better for the economy, and it also means you can manage to live with less money. It also streamlines maintenance jobs (mechanics) into a higher paying job with better conditions since you would ultimately be working on a fleet that needs to be maintained in good conditions rather than dealing with scrap. Streets become safer. Less pollution. Less noise. Better usage of precious city surface area (no longer need rows and rows of car-dedicated space on EVERY street).

Police will stop giving tickets to cars and will instead start ticketing people for not respecting circulation laws, such as crossing on a red light, etc. (well will there really be red lights anymore? no, just a signal that tells you it is safe to pass based on provided data of where cars are currently located). This might reduce income for the city, but it also reduces the need to pay for people to give tickets. Traffic jams become almost impossible.

Basically, it's the expected progression for the future of society: where people will need less money, and the money they will have will be spent more on what they want than what they need, since what we need will be cheap and efficient (transportation first, then energy, and eventually housing, among others).

It's anothe reason why the whole "aging population" negative economic impact thing is a myth; the economy won't be able to support a big population in the future, hence countries with low birth rates will be well adapted to the changed economy (Japan for example.).

 

[And_Gignac]

I would never use a car that isn't mine, and even less if I have to share it with strangers.

 

[DoubleTap]

Almost there...

 

[ganon]

The future.. :3

 

[Calamari41]

I would never use a car that isn't mine, and even less if I have to share it with strangers.

Who has to share an Uber car with strangers?

 

[ComputerMKII]

French taxis have been protesting a lot because of Uber threatening their mafia.

 

[Goldrush]

Just because you don't call yourself a taxi doesn't mean you are not a taxi. My problem with all these services is that they are avoiding all the BS fees and regulations that regular cab driver are suffering through.

 

[Calamari41]

Just because you don't call yourself a taxi doesn't mean you are not a taxi. My problem with all these services is that they are avoiding all the BS fees and regulations that regular cab driver are suffering through.

To me, the answer to this would be to remove the "BS" fees and regulations from the taxis rather than impose them on the Uber-esque services.

 

[badcrumble]

The fees and regulations are often there for good reason. This is sort of like how AirBNB is able to undercut hotels precisely because it doesn't have to do socially necessary things like "paying an actual wage to people cleaning up or making beds." A lot of this is about devaluing labor.

 

[Cat Party]

Reality is going to hit Uber and similar services. You can't escape regulation like this. And do people really want unregulated taxis? There's already a case in San Francisco where an Uber driver killed a little girl, and Uber is trying to avoid liability.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Many of my uberX and Lyft drivers are former cab drivers and they like driving for those companies alot better than with a cab company. So the only losers are the taxi cab company operators and I'm okay with that.

The fees and regulations are often there for good reason. This is sort of like how AirBNB is able to undercut hotels precisely because it doesn't have to do socially necessary things like "paying an actual wage to people cleaning up or making beds." A lot of this is about devaluing labor.

Even if those regulations come, airbnb and car sharing will still be cheaper because you are utilizing something that will sit there unused if you didn't list it on those sites. (and in uber's case, a more efficient use of a car that no longer have to simply sit there parked somewhere).

 

[Deleted member 20415]

Many of my uberX and Lyft drivers are former cab drivers and they like driving for those companies alot better than with a cab company. So the only losers are the taxi cab company operators and I'm okay with that.

Same - guys that either couldn't get the cash together for a medallion themselves, or couldn't find a gig with a company that owned a medallion.

Nearly all like Uber (though some complain about the changes to the cut that Uber has taken recently), and are glad they aren't hustling for fares like the cabs.

 

[Guevara]

Short version: Uber is good, Lyft is bad.

Uber uses existing, regulated and insured livery drivers and vehicles in a more efficient way. No problem at all with this.

Lyft is largely unregulated and underinsured "regular" people trying to make extra money with a shady part time job. (Your individual car insurance policy will not cover you if it's discovered that you are using the vehicle for commercial purposes.) We used to call such cars "Gypsy cabs."

 

[Testicular Sound Express]

So uber and lyft finally came to Pittsburgh and the taxi companies are all up in arms. The taxi situation has been beyond awful for years and years. There was roughly a 50% chance your taxi would never show up. Seeing taxis anywhere other then downtown is like seeing a unicorn and even downtown it was a pain. The PUC has spoken out against uber and lyft and is pretending like there wasn't a problem. Neither company has obtained a license and some say its illegal...the situation is very bizarre.

Luckily, the mayor is fully behind the competition and is pushing for them to stay. Its been hilarious watching Yellow Cab scramble, since the two companies started running I've seen more cabs in the last 2 weeks then I have since I moved into the city in 2004.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

This'll gut the asian community here.

 

[And_Gignac]

Who has to share an Uber car with strangers?

I was referring to OP's comment but I era that wrong, srry.

 

[kick51]

They should have a guy in there anyway just in case


that would be a pretty sweet job

 

[Calamari41]

I was referring to OP's comment but I era that wrong, srry.

Ah, gotcha. In that context, I agree with you. When I'm being piloted around by a self-driving car, it won't be with strangers if I have anything to say about it.

 

[Cyan]

What are the regulations that they're evading?

 

[IAmtheFMan]

As a consumer in Chicago, Uber is fucking amazing. Granted if I'm in a busy area and need a cab, I'll hail one since it's quicker, bug any planned trips (like to the airport in the early morning) it's Uber all the way.

 

[xbhaskarx]

Short version: Uber is good, Lyft is bad.

Uber uses existing, regulated and insured livery drivers and vehicles in a more efficient way. No problem at all with this.

Lyft is largely unregulated and underinsured "regular" people trying to make extra money with a shady part time job. (Your individual car insurance policy will not cover you if it's discovered that you are using the vehicle for commercial purposes.) We used to call such cars "Gypsy cabs."

 

[Guevara]

What are the regulations that they're evading?

The following apply to cabs but not to Uber and Lyft:

• No regulation of rates: Uber and Lyft can charge as much as they want
• No liability insurance (although some drivers may have this)
• No background checks (Uber says they do this voluntarily)
• No vehicle safety inspections, what this really means varies by city
• No limit to how many vehicles can be run. A taxi company is limited by their number of medallions, and the overall number of cabs in the system is limited by how many medallions are issued. Lyft is not limited by this.

 

[pigeon]

The fees and regulations are often there for good reason. This is sort of like how AirBNB is able to undercut hotels precisely because it doesn't have to do socially necessary things like "paying an actual wage to people cleaning up or making beds." A lot of this is about devaluing labor.

This is an interesting angle on the topic, and in the general case I might agree, but taxi services are a classic example of a situation where labor protection has evolved through regulatory capture into monopolistic practices. The number of taxicabs in New York City, for example, is set by law and can't be increased -- this is the perfect example of an artificially restricted market! Nor is there any clear safety or public benefit to be gained by such an arbitrary cutoff.

From a safety perspective, I think you have to recognize that while we don't allow anybody to drive a taxi, we do allow basically anybody to drive, and there's very little that's more dangerous about driving a taxi than a regular car. If that Uber driver had not been an Uber driver, the girl would still be dead. Obviously automobile safety in general is an issue we should strive to address, but improving transport rental is part of the solution there, not part of the problem. Increased taxi availability means fewer drivers (because more people will taxi instead of driving) who are more professional.

The hotel example is more interesting, although I actually dislike AirBnB for an entirely different reason -- it's a tool designed to allow rich people and especially landowners to leverage their wealth more effectively, with very little corresponding societal benefit.

 

[Tesseract]

how soon until everyone gets a monthly stipend, these job losses are brutal.

 

[samus i am]

Car2go is the future, and it is glorious.

 

[Viewt]

Living in Chicago, I use Uber all the time. Going from my apartment to work is usually $9 in an UberX, which is easily worth it when the weather is super shitty. And the "Send to My Location" feature basically makes it drunk-proof. Not having to deal with cash/card swipes/tipping is just the icing on the cake.

 

[The Albatross]

I really support car services like Uber. The number of times I've been driven somewhere by stoned or drunk cab driver is pretty high... hgiher than it should be. The fact that you can rate your driver on Uber (and they can rate you) is one huge improvement.

Many Taxi cab drivers don't like Uber because it cuts into their passengers, and cab company owners obviously hate it because it challenges their business model... But this is their opportunity to challenge how cab businesses are run. Maybe if cab drivers didn't have to pay for their medallions at a ridiculous rate it wouldn't be like forced servitude. Maybe cab companies wouldn't be complete assholes to their drivers and customers with competition.

 

[Viewt]

The other thing is, with Uber, they have FANTASTIC customer service. Every time I've had a negative experience with a driver, I've always gotten an email from them asking for more information and apologizing for the incident. They're very attentive and make an effort to make you feel heard.

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

This isn't tech advancement, this is people circumventing permits & laws.

What next, hire 3 people with Ford pickup trucks & with plenty of time on their hands rather than pay a big rig truck driver?

 

[Cyan]

The following apply to cabs but not to Uber and Lyft:

• No regulation of rates: Uber and Lyft can charge as much as they want
• No liability insurance (although some drivers may have this)
• No background checks (Uber says they do this voluntarily)
• No vehicle safety inspections, what this really means varies by city
• No limit to how many vehicles can be run. A taxi company is limited by their number of medallions, and the overall number of cabs in the system is limited by how many medallions are issued. Lyft is not limited by this.

Interesting. I didn't know taxi cab rates were regulated. Liability insurance and background checks seem like they still ought to apply here. Limiting the number of cabs... doesn't seem like it ought to apply to anyone.

 

[Calamari41]

• No regulation of rates: Uber and Lyft can charge as much as they want

As of now they don't need regulation of rates, as my Uber rides are around 2/3rds the price of identical taxi rides. In my area, at least (Orange County, CA).

 

[Angry Grimace]

I don't see how Uber and Lyft are legal under current laws, though. Whether you like the regulatory laws or not, they still exist.

 

[MrCunningham]

Almost there...

I can't wait for the day when all taxi cabs will have robot drivers that look like Robert Picardo!

 

[BPoole]

I first learned about Uber a few weeks ago. I currently live in the DC Suburbs, but if I were to move into the city where traffic and parking is an absolute joke, I would probably sell my car and just use Uber or a bike

 

[Guevara]

As of now they don't need regulation of rates, as my Uber rides are around 2/3rds the price of identical taxi rides. In my area, at least (Orange County, CA).

There have been complaints

As expected by anyone keeping tabs on on-demand car service Uber, there were a ton of complaints on New Year's Eve from customers caught by surprise by some hefty fares. In fact, if you look at Uber's Twitter feed right now, it's dominated by a series of apologies for the "sticker shock" it caused last night.

Meanwhile, several angry customers have been tweeting screenshots of their sky-high Uber fares. Some are as much as $350 for just a few miles

http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-new-years-eve-surge-pricing-2014-1

 

[neojubei]

As a Black male who sometimes have to take a taxi especially in New York I definitely don't feel bad about the cab industry losing money to uber. It's easier for me to get a uber cab that will actually pick me up than to try and flag a cab and have it always drive past me.

 

[gcubed]

Interesting. I didn't know taxi cab rates were regulated. Liability insurance and background checks seem like they still ought to apply here. Limiting the number of cabs... doesn't seem like it ought to apply to anyone.

there is also some gray area where an uberx driver isn't on the clock unless they are actively picking up a fare...this leads to liability questions when a uber driver who is driving around waiting for fares to pop up on his app hits and kills someone...

 

[Aquamarine]

Can't wait for driverless Taxis that I summon with a tap of my smartphone and pay out of a digital wallet.

For the consumer, it will mean efficient, reliable service and none of the potential hassles that would come out of human error or human discretion.

It could also run 24 hours a day and maximize profits for the companies involved, as every car could be utilized to its maximum potential if everyone jumped on board.

 

[BolognaOni]

My only issue with any car service is liability. Shit happens, and if you're running a car service, you'd better be properly insured. Regulating that is not unreasonable.

Incidentally, this same problem is likely to hold back driverless cars for the foreseeable future. Even if it's much much much better than a human operator, a software operator is not going to be flawless. Ultimately the vehicle owner is going to have to be responsible (or the manufacturer, but if that's the case no one is going to sell them).

 

[DrSlek]

I would imagine that self-driven cars would be ripe for vandalism.

 

[pigeon]

There have been complaints


http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-new-years-eve-surge-pricing-2014-1

This isn't particularly meaningful unless you ask the question of why there are price regulations on taxis in the first place. Considered from that angle, the answer should be obvious: taxi prices are regulated because taxis are a monopoly. Since nobody is allowed to start their own taxi service, the people controlling the medallions could charge literally anything they wanted to if there weren't legal restrictions. This is another thing that Uber and Uber-style services should, in the long run, make unnecessary. Uber's prices are set by the market, and as Lyft should make clear, Uber doesn't really do anything anybody else can't do. If prices get higher, you can start another taxi app and charge less. Bingo, commoditization of transport services.

My only issue with any car service is liability. Shit happens, and if you're running a car service, you'd better be properly insured. Regulating that is not unreasonable.

Incidentally, this same problem is likely to hold back driverless cars for the foreseeable future. Even if it's much much much better than a human operator, a software operator is not going to be flawless. Ultimately the vehicle owner is going to have to be responsible (or the manufacturer, but if that's the case no one is going to sell them).

I don't see this being a big problem. To start off, driverless cars will probably require somebody to sit in the driver's seat for non-commercial owners, and that driver will assume liability, just as they do now. This won't make a big difference as long as there are waivers for commercial owners -- taxi services, truckers, etc. These services would have to assume liability for their unmanned vehicles, but again, they already assume much of that liability for their manned vehicles, so it won't be a big change.

 

[Enduin]

I would imagine that self-driven cars would be ripe for vandalism.

I don't think it will be much of an issue. GPS, Cameras and requirement of Credit Cards kind of diminish the vast majority of threats.

 

[Goldrush]

While I might not agree with a lot of the regulations imposed by the government and how the payment methodology and rate can be changed at the whim of the mayor at least here in DC, I do not see why Uber should not be subjected to the same thing the cab drivers are. Is not being able to pick up passenger on the side of the road the only justification that they are not a taxi? From my experience in DC, at least, the back end sounds pretty similar, where a fare will automatically get assigned based on distance. Hell, I know some do it through tablets just like Uber does.

 

[Cyan]

I don't see how Uber and Lyft are legal under current laws, though. Whether you like the regulatory laws or not, they still exist.

Sure, I was more thinking aloud. It does seem odd that they aren't subjected to standard regulations. Though I suppose that's one way to get some movement behind changing some of the regulations!

 

[disco]

I live in London.

Uber - too expensive.
Addison Lee - too expensive.
Greentomato - cheapest.
Hail - okay sometimes.

 

[Stinkles]

Do cab companies in San Francisco still ignore their phone?

When I lived there it was almost pointless calling them. You could be on hold for an hour.

 

[pigeon]

Sure, I was more thinking aloud. It does seem odd that they aren't subjected to standard regulations. Though I suppose that's one way to get some movement behind changing some of the regulations!

For rich people reasons, taxi regulations have to be written in such a way that they don't apply to towncars (liveried drivers). Generally this means that the regulations apply to drivers that are not chartered beforehand. Uber exploits this loophole by allowing you to charter a driver beforehand using your mobile phone, i.e., immediately upon needing a car.