LA sides with taxi companies, sends cease-and-desists to Lyft, Uber, and Sidecar

http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/06/24/37904/la-sides-with-taxi-companies-sends-cease-and-desis/

by chwitta9000 • 13 years ago

49 82 13 years ago

chwitta90003• 13 years ago

Sorry, but I have a hard time feeling sympathetic for these LA cabbies when every time I try to use my credit card to pay they act like I just skipped out on the fare.

akama• 13 years ago

Something very similar happened to me the other day. A cab driver refused to let me pay by credit card. He said that he loses money on every ride that uses a credit card.

chwitta90003• 13 years ago

I've been told by cabbies that it takes the cab companies a week or so to process (at least in LA) and that's why the drivers hate it so much.

owenjones2• 13 years ago

Happens all the time here. Only once has a cabbie ever let me pay with card, he was angry at all the other taxi drivers who only accept cash so as to not report the income.

mehmehshoe• 13 years ago

The article stated that taxi activists would be protesting today. I wonder if the protesters are the people that own the medallions? I doubt the drivers making $8 an hour have time to protest. The medallion scheme needs reform or replacement.

Further reading: http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/47636506327/the-tyranny-of...

sdoowpilihp• 13 years ago

These kind of actions on the part of existing taxi and limo services are to be expected. When a large and powerful group can't win on merit or the quality of their product, they will attempt to win through any other means, including litigation or politics. This move reeks of desperation, and if I were any of the three companies mentioned, I would see this as a glass half full scenario. Time to lawyer up.

rayiner9• 13 years ago

That's one explanation of the situation (and there is certainly an element of that).

The other element of the situation is that people use litigation and politics to protect existing bargains. Cabs are regulated, for various reasons. Cities use them as an extension of their public transit infrastructure, and impose restrictions like requiring them to service the whole city, instead of just the profitable neighborhoods. In return, the cab companies are given a monopoly.

So if the cities allow Uber to skim off all the premium business, without requiring Uber to serve the sketchy/marginal neighborhoods, then that's the city going back on its side of the bargain. The cabs can't "win on merit" when they're playing with one hand tied behind their back.

The fair thing to do is either enforce the existing monopoly and keep out Uber, or alternatively to get rid of the monopoly and the regulations too.

jrockway• 13 years ago

You're confusing taxi services and car services. Taxis are for street-hail, but that's not what Uber does; Uber is a car service. Their app handles the dispatch and payment processing, but is otherwise the same business that car services have always had. (Car services aren't supposed to be "on demand", however, but find me one car service in the world that won't come get you immediately and we'll talk...)

owenjones2• 13 years ago

Doesn't the fact the Uber drivers come to the passenger alleviate that fact? Also, anecdotally, from experience living in bad neighborhoods in my city taxi cabs are generally less likely to visit.

redblacktree3• 13 years ago

It's funny; you say that, but cab drivers are infamous for asking passengers "Where are you going?" and subsequently driving off when they don't like the destination.

johnrob2• 13 years ago

Unfortunately, the influence of the large and powerful group has already been written into law. Asking the city to ignore its own laws is probably not going to be a solution for these new transportation services.

untog4• 13 years ago

I feel a little sorry for Uber being bunched in with Lyft and Sidecar- the latter two use a sort of nebulous "rideshare" concept to skirt around being considered taxi cabs, but Uber uses licensed drivers, as far as I can tell.

ngoel363• 13 years ago

This infuriates me beyond belief. How is Uber not in everybody's best interests? The end-user experience is clearly far superior, I can't find a soul who can argue with that (except for the understandable price differential which will diminish with scale). I haven't personally talked to a driver for either service, but the experience for them has to be better. Uber, as a private company, can optimize for extraneous costs, ultimately leaving a larger margin to be paid to the drivers. But I digress, why make bold claims as to which is better, I just wish municipalities would let the free market decide. Let the boys play, goddammit.

In a magical world where I could change all city cabs into Ubers, I can't imagine there would be too many complaints.

The situation reminds me of local food merchants in my parents' hometown in India. They fucking hate Walmart, and they've got every city official in their pockets to make sure Walmart (or any large grocery store) ever lays a brick there. They hate the fact that Walmart will have lower, standardized prices; better, consistently fresh produce; well-trained, honest workers. They hate that Walmart might kill their business. What they don't realize is if they just went and worked for Walmart, their life might be better than it is while running their own shitty little tomato stand. Where they have to work their ass off all summer so their wives can buy a winter jacket. Where one little tomato pest can kill their entire crop, and in turn, their kid's chance of going to school that year. Where another tomato farmer can undercut their prices and move their cart next door whenever they want.

It's a bummer that some people will always be resistant to change.

tptacek13• 13 years ago

It's easy to show how Uber isn't in everyone's best interests: cabs are required to service well-defined metro areas at a standardized fare; in return for agreeing to operate under a set of regulations that makes them part of the transit fabric of a city, regulated cab services is granted a monopoly.

That system doesn't work if cabs are forced to compete at a disadvantage with other services that don't operate under the same constraints.

citricsquid• 13 years ago

The problem is doing this (ending regulation, allowing uber and any other company to operate in any way they decide) may work in the short term with uber in its current form but long term the effects COULD be disastrous, uber is going to evolve and may evolve into something that does not work as well as it does now, which could cripple a lot of American cities. I visited an American city and wanted to get a burger, we had to take a cab just to get a burger! If you were a city that had a dependence on cabs would you be willing to risk it all? The current system might not be perfect but is it worth sacrificing for something that nobody knows how it will work in the long term? That might work for a startup... but does it work for local government?

thwest• 13 years ago

You know that Walmart aggressively optimizes to reduce the amount it pays its workers: keeping everyone at 39.5 hours to avoid paying benefits and using social norms as an excuse to consistently pay women less than men? And you think it is a bummer that people are resistant to those changes?

They are small business owners and you are asking them to trade in their autonomy for someone else's profits. Sounds like a decision they are capable of making on their own.

mcmatterson2• 13 years ago

How is Uber not in everybody's best interests?

Poor and elderly people, for a start. Spend a bit of time by the entrance to a major hospital and observe how the other half uses taxis as a lifeline; you might just change your tune.

It may come as a surprise to many people here, but taxis aren't just there to transport privileged rich folks to and from parties. They're an integral part of any well functioning city's transportation system, and handing the keys over in the name of disruption is naive at best and outright dangerous to some of society's most vulnerable populations at worst.

Disclaimer: as a card carrying member of the privileged elite, I've used Uber in the past and will probably do so in the future. I'm merely trying to point out that the taxi industry doesn't exist in a vacuum.

steven777400• 13 years ago

Wow. Would you also say to someone struggling to make a software business work that they should just give up and go work for Microsoft?

These tomato stands might be shitty, but they keep the vast majority of the wealth of the community IN the community, instead of siphoning it out like a major multi-national would do.

schiffern• 13 years ago

if they just went and worked for Walmart

All of them? So Walmart will employ just as many people while paying them more and simultaneously offering lower prices?

JosephBrown• 13 years ago

Why shouldn't the regulations that apply to one group of people who charge money to drive others around on public roads not apply to every group of people who charge to drive people around for money?

ryanmcbride2• 13 years ago

Extrapolate this, am I not allowed to accept gas money from a friend if I drive them around?

Of course I wouldn't be fined for that, but where is the line drawn? Do I have to know a person very well before I can accept their money for a ride? A friend of a friend? Will I be asked to answer a series of questions about the person if I am pulled over?

TillE• 13 years ago

Running a business vs not is already pretty well established in tax law.

johnrob2• 13 years ago

If that argument were valid, none of the current taxi companies would buy transportation licenses or commercial insurance.

Shivetya• 13 years ago

For many industries to be regulated is to be protected. This issue is very little different from others we have read about here, a prime example would be either AirBnB or even Tesla.

The root of all of these is government. Your going to have to push for less regulation to get into many markets. To get there means one or more strategies. Changing who is government, for that you will need to convince people there is a benefit in doing that. Second to that would be reducing the size of government, put limits on what it can do. Third, you could try and get the people making the laws on your side, but your up against numbers.

So whether its taxi rides, rooms for rent, cars to sell, hair dressers, or even where you kid can go to school, its all about regulation and protection of those regulated.

Don't get mad at those who work in regulated fields, find a way to reduce that regulation to give them choices, you choices, and customers of all a choice.

chwitta90003• 13 years ago

For those of you that care or for those of you that live in LA, there is a petition going around. Not sure how effective these are, but I signed.

Here--> https://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-los-angeles-repeal-...

LA sides with taxi companies, sends cease-and-desists to Lyft, Uber, and Sidecar

Related Stories