This same argument was made when Austin required fingerprinting for drivers and Uber and Lyft left.
What happened? Their was a flourishing of new ride share companies, including a local nonprofit, RideAustin. Yes, at first, these apps were nowhere near the level of Uber/Lyft, but they quickly improved, especially RideAustin. The prices were slightly higher, but it seemed those prices reflected the actual cost of the service without the VC subsidy.
I dread taking a taxi and I'm no friend of the formerly entrenched taxi companies, but this idea that making some sensible regulations that these multibillion dollar VC-subsidized tech companies need to follow is "anti-innovation" is BS.
I just read those two articles (from June) and don't get the idea that either was crushed. The drivers just saw the number of rides and disperse to more services, and the $350 promotions etc. RideAustin still seems to have almost 50% of the business, with Fasten, Uber, and Lyft splitting the rest?
Yep, this happened, but still doesn't change my point that these huge, extremely well VC-funded firms are not so much the giant drivers of innovation the article makes them out to be.
If anything (as mentioned in another HN article I saw today about the slowdown in new business formation), these huge, "winner-take-all" tech companies may be a net negative for innovation in the long run.
I think demand is a better proxy for the will of consumers than any law or legislation. If the citizens of Austin refuse to use Uber or Lyft they will disappear without any legislation.
The tourists have more sway as consumers than the citizens do. There's more of them, they're more likely to use a ride-sharing service, and they're more likely to choose Uber of Lyft over a local brand just from the name recognition.
The Austin fingerprint law was a voter initiative passed by Austin citizens. The state of Texas overturned it by vote of elected representatives from across the state. I think the latter is much more a "state intervention".
It's interesting to precisely consider what "a voter initiative passed by Austin citizens" translates to. And to clarify the fingerprint law was not what was actually passed. That law was passed unilaterally by the city council --- whom a cynic might suggest was driven by what we'll call "lobbying", rather than necessity. The vote was a result of ride sharing services collecting the necessary tens of thousands of signatures that required the City Council to either soften the rules or bring the matter to public vote. The council chose to spend the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars necessary to keep the ordinance intact and hold an impromptu election.
These [1] are the results of that election. Austin has a population of 950,000 residents with a voting age population of about 741,000 [2]. In total about 5% of the resident population voted to maintain the fingerprinting law and 4% to soften it. A 1% margin on a voter turnout of less than 12%.
I fully appreciate that that is a 'democratic republic in action.' I'm certain you can understand one might find it distasteful, just as one can easily understand your distaste for state level 'democratic republic in action.' I'm certain our systems made all the sense in the world hundreds of years ago. But these sort of things do not feel right today when we live in a country with counties that now have greater population than the entire country did when these laws and systems were developed.
It's not a ban on ride-sharing. It's a ban on a single specific company: Uber. And the ban is because Uber was routinely violating sensible regulations.
What other ride-sharing company operates in London?
Addison lee, kabbee and the multiple private cab companies can't offer the same service as uber when you need a ride on the moment.
They are fine when you can book in advance, otherwise be prepared to wait half an hour or more.
The fact that there is only one barber, butcher, or baker (or candlestick maker... whatever) in town should not dissuade us from putting them out of business if they don't pay attention to safety regulations...
Then if safety is really the concern why taxis and cabs can operate given that they are way less safe than uber?
I would rather use the safer option, but instead I'm forced to use the less safe options.
No. It's presented as an outright ban, but that doesn't mean what you think it means.
Uber is able to continue business while it appeals. As long as the appeal process is continuing (and it may well continue for years to the High Court) Uber can continue business as usual.
Uber can change its processes during the course of the appeal, and if they match what is required, the ban will fail.
This is a high-visibility, high-impact method of regulation that Uber can't ignore. Given Uber's habit of ignoring regulations it doesn't like, it seems entirely appropriate.
One of the largest problems that the UK has had with the EU is that EU-mandated regulations are not implemented by some EU member countries. This is against all the rules of the EU, but there's no enforcement.
In the UK, regulations are implemented and enforced. This is that enforcement in practice. One of the reasons London has flourished as a financial centre is because the regulatory agency doesn't mess around and does its job properly. This gives certainty, stability, and engenders trust in trading partners.
The article is entirely wrong, completely misunderstands what's happening here, and why.
So bending over backwards and making companies not follow the law is "stifling technology companies". As others have pointed out Uber could play by the rules if they wanted to.
Could they? Isn’t their whole business model using VC money to create predatory pricing and dominate everything? I think Uber is rotten as a premise, and when you take the bad behavior out, barring a sudden and miraculous breakthrough in automated automobiles, they’re not viable.
Oh really? I gave up using Uber when I watched a ride go from $9 to $22, then back down to $12 after I killed the app and reopened it. Lyft pulls much the same shit, but killing and reopening will get me within a few cents of that initial $9 price.
Ultimately, it just means I set my life up such that neither Uber or Lyft can hold me hostage with insane spikes in pricing. Thus I bike and drive more than I'd like.
Can they thought ? The whole gig economy model depends on not treating service providers as employees. The reason for ban does not specifically say what regulations were not followed. It mentions uber did not report crimes . Well I don't get that argument as the victim reports the crime to police and not to uber. Secondly , there is no proof or suspicion of greyball ever Been used in London. It was like they just put that in there to make Uber look bad instead of giving actual reason to ban it . All the uber drivers in London are certified private hire drivers so I don't see exactly what regulations they are talking about . Maybe they want more background checks in that case uber should obey those requests.
I find it interesting that the article fails to mention the reason behind the bans. Perhaps they expect us to already know that it's due to problems with driver background checks. (correct me if I'm wrong)
Then again, if the argument is that in a pure libertarian system consumers would drive out bad actors like this, I'm not sure that this line of thinking would hold. The convenience of a cheap ride would seem to be worth the cost of the seemingly small chance that a user might be assaulted if the world worked this way.
If so then they should mentioned incidences which lead to this suspicion. Both mayor and uber has failed to make it clear what the reason of contention is between them. The rules which uber is not following should have been listed instead of arbitrary statements like Uber failed to report crimes by their drivers . This can happen only if victim decides to report to uber instead of police which sounds very unlikely scenario to me.
That's nonsense. If you have a dispute between you and a company, everyone will expect you to talk to the company first. If it turns out that your dispute relates to breach of the law (for instance, improper racial discrimination of clients), you might not necessarily realise you have the ability to report it to the police. To say it sounds like a very unlikely scenario to you makes it sound like you're trying to find reasons to defend Uber, not trying to interpret the scene fairly.
This is some economist from George Mason University who claims markets are the answer to everything.[1] There's a whole bunch of those guys at George Mason, available to write advertorials on demand.
Snip:
Transportation authority didn't ban because of job security or localization. It didn't renew Uber license because Uber is not following local authority guidelines.
Well, thirty from notting hill to heathrow by mini cab for me. If you mean the actual city that would maybe 55. Not sure if you mean the city, say Liverpool Street, or west end something. In any case that extra cash went straight to the driver I'd guess. Black cabs cost more, but for completeness, I'm guessing you didn't need to pay that much.
I really took your comment at face value. It's just that the current trend of Obama being a muslim terrorist sympathizer, Hillary Clinton running a child porn ring out of a pizza parlor and other such utter shit (and a significant amount of people actually believing that) makes me want gnaw off the wall paper.
Brexit is UK's "Donald Trump": a manifestation of projected socioeconomic angst in a self-defeating manner that doesn't address inequality at the policy level. It's like suggesting California secede: good luck with trade policies, printing a currency, forming a military and so on. It's civilizational "reorg" churn that accomplishes nothing, eg, mob nonsense. If people collectively possessed integrity and moral courage, they would directly call out what they felt was inequity instead of scapegoating this group, that trade arrangement or a startup.
What happened? Their was a flourishing of new ride share companies, including a local nonprofit, RideAustin. Yes, at first, these apps were nowhere near the level of Uber/Lyft, but they quickly improved, especially RideAustin. The prices were slightly higher, but it seemed those prices reflected the actual cost of the service without the VC subsidy.
I dread taking a taxi and I'm no friend of the formerly entrenched taxi companies, but this idea that making some sensible regulations that these multibillion dollar VC-subsidized tech companies need to follow is "anti-innovation" is BS.