[Zarel]

That sounds pretty legitimate if the laws don't actually protect people, and have been corrupted by wealthy interests, such as taxi medallion owners. Or if the laws are outdated.

Ubers are consistently safer than taxis, provide better customer service, don't intentionally take long routes to scam you, actually take credit card instead of pretending their credit card reader is broken, don't refuse to drive you because you have luggage or are going a short distance or are living in a bad part of town, etc etc.

It turns out that Uber's rating system is much better for people's protection than whatever laws and background checks taxis are subject to.

[ycombobreaker]

> actually take credit card instead of pretending their credit card reader is broken

After you've arrived at your destination, have you really found any taxi driver who would rather take _no payment_ than a credit card? If all you have is plastic--and if the driver is required to accept that form of payment--then I guess I don't see the problem (for riders). I've had drivers take my credit card # on a carbon copy physical swipe. I've had drivers admit that the card reader actually _did_ work. Unfortunately for them, I've even had drivers accept underpayment in cash because they were legitimately unprepared.

[traviscj]

So, when it is unclear whether they are scamming you, your response is: here, have a physical copy of my credit card information? Sure, the liability is with your bank, but still seems like bad decision making.

[ycombobreaker]

I don't see the problem:

- You are using "scamming" as a binary yes/no behavior, when in fact there is a huge difference between lying about a faulty machine and committing credit card fraud. The most likely reason for the lie (not "scam", that's too strong of a word here) is to avoid the credit processing fee. And that's _if_ they are lying in the first place. There simply isn't much (risk-adjusted) benefit for the driver to escalate that situation into credit fraud.

- The information on a hard-copy swipe is identical to a magnetic swipe and also the information provided to any online merchant (i.e. CC#, name, expiration; not CVV). Why should I be any more worried about this information on a piece of paper vs. the risk of a card skimmer at a gas station? Or a security breach of any one of the multitude of online retails who I have _ever_ shopped with?

- As you stated, the risk goes to the bank, as I am not liable for fraudulent transactions on my card. In fact, there's actually risk going to the driver as well: without an immediate approval, they don't know if I'm handing them a worthless card!

- The implication from your statement seems to be that... you wouldn't pay the driver, who has already rendered services and is capable of accepting valid payment from you. Is that what you mean? If so, that is not OK.

[rando18423]

Protect people! Ha! The laws covering cabs require them to go into undesirable areas so those that can't afford a full car can still get around, accept cash payments for those unable to get credit, vehicle inspections, and so on. When you say protect people, do you just mean the people in your bubble where everyone has a card?

[rahimnathwani]

Taxis in many cities will refuse to go somewhere (e.g. JFK, South London, outer Beijing, ...) even though they are legally obligated to take you anywhere. There is little recourse. The driver's medallion won't be taken away for breaking the conditions of the monopoly.