[imartin2k]

Obviously opinions about Uber and usage frequency vary, but it's a matter of fact that the quality of Taxi service in most European countries is better than in the U.S., and the ubiquity and affordability of public transport means that there is little actual need for Uber for most people in urban areas BEYOND convenience and luxury needs. And while those of course are total legit, they (in my eyes) shouldn't be the main driver in shaping legislation which will affect everyone.

[icebraining]

My experience as an European taking our local taxis:

- Getting scammed by the typical "longer ride"

- Aggressive driving, crossing red lights, etc

- Unpleasant drivers: either passive-aggressive who won't reply to your "good morning", or permanently complaining about everything, including the current trip (too cheap!)

- Apps? Ha! They don't even have GPS, and no, they don't know "the whole city", good luck getting to a smaller street just by the address.

- Your trip goes a bit outside the city limits? Here's a surcharge for the remainder of the trip plus a fee for the trip back (even after your left the cab).

Plus one can't even point to Uber's corruption and lack of respect for law: our association of taxis and its president are no better, just smaller.

Uber's are not particularly cheaper around here, yet I'd choose it or one of their competitors over taxis any day even if they were 50% more expensive.

[imartin2k]

No question there, these are problems (although in the countries I know about such as Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, the taxi organizations have apps, and in addition there is MyTaxi).

But if you are a person who is willing to pay 50 % more just to get the Uber experience, then it is rather likely that you are part of a minority. Which, I think, proves my point of the group that Uber mostly caters to: convenience-focused people with enough money not having to worry about (frequently?) pay for ridesharing.

Someone like you is already able to take Uber Black, so everything is fine, isn't it?

[icebraining]

I don't get it, why would Black be OK but not X?

And I disagree that it's just convenience. Crossing red lights and similar behavior that I've seen make it a safety issue as well.

By the way, I'm not willing to pay more because I'm flush with cash, but because I drive it rarely enough that it wouldn't mean much at the end of the year.

[imartin2k]

The claim that taxi dribers cross red lights (and Uber drivers don't) is the weirdest argument in support of Uber I have heard about so far.

Uber Black is giving you what you want: An enhanced experience over taxi while simoultaneosuly following the legal requirements.

But what you want in addition: it should be cheaper than taxi. Better overall experience, but cheaper. Makes sense, everyone wants that. But this comes with larger costs for the society (especially long-term) which frustratingly, the biggest Uber advocates always choose to ignore.

Having said that, I really do understand the frustration about the regular imperfections and inefficiencies of hailing a cab. The problem I see that the proposed answer - Uber - the very company - is in the end a very bad solution from a big picture view (even if it elevates the rider experience).

[icebraining]

> The claim that taxi dribers cross red lights (and Uber drivers don't) is the weirdest argument in support of Uber I have heard about so far.

It's my experience, atypical or not.

> Uber Black is giving you what you want: An enhanced experience over taxi while simoultaneosuly following the legal requirements.

Incorrect. There's no legal difference between the two in my jurisdiction.

Maybe you're confused by Uber's names? Around here, like in other (all?) countries in Europe, UberX only uses drivers with professional licenses to drive passengers. The "free-for-all" model is UberPOP (which was never introduced in my country).

By the way, please don't tell others what they want. Obviously all other things equal I prefer to pay less, but I was very explicit in that I don't mind if they're somewhat more expensive, I'd still use it over taxis.

Having said that, while I like that Uber gave a kick in the pants in a complacent and frankly arrogant professional class, now that the market has been opened up I don't care if Uber itself sticks around.

[imartin2k]

You are right, I did mix up the names, sorry for that.

[szatkus]

"- Apps? Ha! They don't even have GPS, and no, they don't know "the whole city", good luck getting to a smaller street just by the address."

I usually use night tram (living in northern part of Poznań is quite nice) when I drink, but when I use taxi they usually have GPS. At least for a few years.

[spikels]

Maybe public transit only runs certain hours or that high quality taxi is too expensive. The billions of trips on Uber and similar platforms indicate that this is often the case.

If in fact there is "little actual need" for Uber, then nobody will use it. That's the beauty of allowing consumers the choice. It uncovers whether assumptions like this are actually true. It is like constantly running an experiment.

[TeMPOraL]

> The billions of trips on Uber and similar platforms indicate that this is often the case.

> That's the beauty of allowing consumers the choice. It uncovers whether assumptions like this are actually true. It is like constantly running an experiment.

From hundreds of years of running market economies in the world we already have a clear experimental result: consumers prefer cheaper goods/services to more expensive ones of equivalent quality.

If you can make your service cheaper by subsidizing it with VC money and then even more by ignoring regulation, then there's no surprise consumers will use it - even if long term, the service is unsustainable and socially destructive.

[coffeestickoil]

Why wouldn't I prefer Uber to Taxis even if the price was the same? I've ridden in tons of Ubers and taxis and the quality of the Uber ride has always been better: cleaner car, a non-monetary rating system that enforces good behavior (I think it's clear that tipping does nothing), working GPS and credit card usage, drivers always know where to go, etc.

I've never had to tell an Uber driver where to go or approximately where my destination is, so it's really frustrating when I can remember a few times where I would get into a taxi and have the taxi guy be frustrated at ME, the paying customer, for not knowing what region of the city my destination was.

[imartin2k]

Well, I explicitly wrote "BEYOND convenience and luxury needs"

Of course some people take Uber. For almost any kind of service there will be customers. But that's not the point. At least not my point. My point is that the large majority of people in Europe do not need Uber for their mobility needs. And therefore, Uber should - in my point of view - not get outsize influence over transportation policy.

Because Uber is not just a startup that wants equal terms. It is a predatory (I really rarely use this word, but for Uber, I do) giant that has zero consideration for social responsibility and very deep pockets for lobbyism. Once they have a foot in the door, they'll push it wide open. Which is why cautiousness in this case is really necessary, in my eyes.

[narrowrail]

It seems like the key argument hinges on whether or not venture capital is significantly subsidizing these rides. If Uber ever turns a profit (not a financially engineered one), that might change the discussion a bit.