[CurtHagenlocher]

I'm genuinely curious: what is it that distinguishes these services from taxis? Why is it okay for one to be regulated but not the other -- or do proponents of these services generally think that taxis shouldn't be regulated either?

[lambda]

Taxis can be flagged down on the street. All you have to go on is that it looks like a taxi, and has a medallion. If they aren't part of a regulated system with mandatory fares, medallion numbers, safety regulations, you have no idea what you'd be getting into when you flag one down without some kind of regulation.

These, instead, generally count as livery services. If you are calling a specific business to be picked up, you know who you're dealing with ahead of times, and can check their rates, choose based on their reputation, etc.

At least in Boston, Uber drivers are regulated, but as livery not as taxis, as you "call" them rather than hailing them directly on the street.

[CurtHagenlocher]

Thanks, this is what I was looking for. There's a livery service in Seattle called "Seattle Town Car" and now I'm wondering what kind of regulation they face. From what I can tell, Seattle isn't quite a city like Chicago or New York where being able to flag down a cab on the street is both common and important, and I wonder to what extent that plays into the dynamic.

I wasn't generally interested in attacking or defending regulation as such, but the most compelling thing I've heard in favor of regulation is that livery services don't have the same legal obligation as taxi companies to offer vehicles which can serve handicapped people.

[icebraining]

Regulations is not a yes or no question. Many proponents of such services are OK with certain regulations (e.g. safety), while being opposed to others (caps on number of vehicles).

Others are simply opposed to all industry-specific regulations, and a few are opposed to the concept of the State as a whole ;)

And yes, as far as I've read, many are opposed to caps on all taxis, not just on Uber/Lyft.

[analog31]

In a big city like NYC, taxis are part of an overall transportation system. Regulating them ensures that they are available where and when they are expected to be. People plan their activities around the functioning of that system.

Naturally, a different system might work better or worse. A worse outcome would be more people taking their own cars into the city because they need or want quick access to a vehicle.

Regulating the number of cabs probably helps deal with traffic congestion, and also makes it potentially possible for drivers to earn a living wage. However, I can see where on-call cars are a different situation because they would serve a different purpose.

[icebraining]

Regulating them ensures that they are available where and when they are expected to be.

But does it really? A study[1] from 2000 shows that the availability is not that great in NYC. Any why should it be, if the regulations cap their number?

Regulating the number of cabs probably helps deal with traffic congestion, and also makes it potentially possible for drivers to earn a living wage.

Why, if most drivers can't afford the medallions and end up having to work for the few that can? In fact, the same study shows that as industry revenue grows, the wages don't follow.

Frankly, this is typical of regulations as they're implemented in the US and other countries (including mine). It's the Bootleggers and Baptists all around, which mostly end up feeding the capitalists at the expense of lower classes.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/17/nyregion/riders-know-study...

[pmorici]

"Regulating them ensures that they are available where and when they are expected to be."

Do you actually believe that? Because I don't see how it could possibly be true. Uber does a better job of providing cars when and where they're needed than any other cab company I've ever seen. Not only to they make it easy for drivers to work part time to accommodate higher demand during peak hours they also provide service to areas of cites where taxi drivers flat out refuse to go despite their supposed regulated status to provide service to all parts of the city. I've talked to people who use Uber in Baltimore about it for example and before Uber they would routinely be stranded in bad parts of town or off the beaten path areas and the taxi dispatcher would literally laugh at them if they called for a pickup.

[analog31]

Note in response to responses: Admittedly my experience is limited to a few times that I've been in the more busy areas of Chicago and NYC. I'm certainly open to the idea of coming up with something better, and if an unregulated alternative works, bring it on!

[sanctuslibre]

If by "proponents of these services" you mean customers, then answer is that you can detect whether or not they care by seeing how they spend their money. Everyone else is irrelevant.