Uber, Maker of Summon-a-Car App, Wins in Washington

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/uber-vs-washington-dc/

by iProject • 14 years ago

49 21 14 years ago

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

tnash• 14 years ago

This is good news. What was proposed before (a price floor five times above taxis, assuredly to prevent disruption of the taxi industry) was not at all in the public's best interest.

Neepy• 14 years ago

Agreed. I don't understand preservational methodologies such as this. If the demand for taxis dies as a result of better alternatives, then let it. How else will we progress without being willing to give up our old habits?

qq662• 14 years ago

It's not quite as simple as that -- taxis are widely used by homeless/indigent people as sometimes their only means of transportation to get to the doctor/employment/etc. These individuals may not have the correct technology or knowledge to use services like Uber.

If the taxi industry does die, cities should provide some kind of "summon-an-Uber" facility, perhaps through former payphone locations etc.

rossjudson• 14 years ago

I'd like to see a breakdown of the money flow in the traditional taxi industry. With a medallion system, how much of the cash flow goes to the medallion owner, and how much to the driver?

GFischer• 14 years ago

There was an interesting article on that recently:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/06/taxi...

"New York fares have gone up six times over the last 30 years, yet drivers’ real income has fallen"

10098• 14 years ago

I've been their customer for the past few months and I have to say, this service is quite amazing. It's not cheap, but it is extremely convenient and the cars and the drivers are really good.

pfedor• 14 years ago

This is very disappointing. I hoped that the government would treat its duty to protect me from cheap car services more seriously.

saurik2• 14 years ago

I realize you are joking, but the concern really is that cab companies are something that consumers are trusting their lives with, and often in situations before they can evaluate trustworthiness or history, if not of entire companies then certainly of individual drivers. There are extensive regulations that have thereby been placed on such companies over the years related to vehicle maintenance, specialized insurance, and traffic organization. Uber believes that none of this should apply to them because they are being "disruptive" (as if that is somehow itself a benefit for which we should be optimizing as a society).

hyperbovine• 14 years ago

And thank God for that. Can you imagine if cabbies drove irresponsibly?

twelve45• 14 years ago

I believe Uber simply sub-contracts to independent sedan drivers who have already jumped through all the necessary governmental hoops - it's not a dispatching system for gypsy cabs. The drivers I spoke to in my city (SF) said that they simply use Uber as an additional source of income.

This is certainly the case with their new "Uber X" service as well that got into trouble in DC - the only difference is that they dispatch hybrids from their partners vs. towncars / SUVs.

buyx2• 14 years ago

We don't miss regulation until it's gone. The apartheid government, in its dying days, decided to promote free-marketism and it deregulated the minibus taxi sector, thinking that each driver would run a one-man business. What really happened is that those with access to capital bought fleets of minibuses and South Africas cities became a nightmare by the mid-1990's with taxi-owners forming cartels which engaged in bloody wars for lucrative routes. The taxis are unsafe, and their drivers are reckless (passengers dare not complain). Government attempts at re-regulation are constantly stymied.

The taxi industry operates with impunity, and managed to get ownership of new Bus Rapid Transit systems in Johannesburg and Pretoria (they'd have shot bus drivers if they didn't get a stake).

I've been threatened personally with a weapon (a hammer, not a gun, fortunately) by a taxi driver who felt I didn't move out of his way fast enough. Not coincidentally, it was around that time that my libertarian leanings began to wane.

jessriedel• 14 years ago

It's worth pointing out that many commentors in the last thread on this case justified the historic price regulation of cabs by municipalities based mostly off safety issues, and often said that it was reasonable for the government to continue to so regulate even when technology disrupted the industry:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4221589

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4221844

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4221747

But the city council gets some angry emails from constituents about blocking Uber and what do they do? Remove the minimum prices requirements without any compensating changes to the safety regulations. (Presumably, Uber cabs already satisfy the safety rules for dispatched sedans.)

So, whatever you think about cab regulation in the abstract, I think this is good evidence that the mechanism for how the government actually makes regulatory decisions bares no relation to abstract arguments. The government officials are just human beings responding to their various incentives.

Uber, Maker of Summon-a-Car App, Wins in Washington

Related Stories