[ghshephard]

"Licensing to carry passengers" is definitely something I want to see disrupted. There is no value to me, or others, from having the the driver "licensed to carry passengers."

It certainly doesn't provide any assurance of quality (as indicated by the horrible drivers and customer service one gets from Taxi Drivers on the Peninsula).

I think it's entirely reasonable to require Insurance, Background Checks, Car Safety Checkups (from a third party), Drivers Valid License - Basically anything that is in place to protect consumer safety, instead of there to protect incumbents market ownership.

For example - in London, acquisition of "The Knowledge" is not there to protect consumers, it's there to reduce the amount of competition. I would absolutely not require "The Knowledge" prior to anyone becoming a Lyft/Uber driver.

And, as one who has taken thousands of taxi-rides, I can tell you that Uber/Lyft are not just innovation, they are mind-blowing revolutionary disruptive innovation to this industry. They are a much bigger deal for cab rides, than the iPhone was for the smart phone.

[Jare]

> There is no value to me, or others, from having the the driver "licensed to carry passengers."

The value is in that the license can be taken away if the owner does not comply with the appropriate requisites for the activity. The relationship between a taxi driver and their passenger extends way beyond the mere act of driving, so the driver's license is not enough.

[tomp]

> There is no value to me, or others, from having the the driver "licensed to carry passengers."

> I think it's entirely reasonable to require Insurance, Background Checks, Car Safety Checkups (from a third party), Drivers Valid License - Basically anything that is in place to protect consumer safety

You contradict yourself.

> I would absolutely not require "The Knowledge" prior to anyone becoming a Lyft/Uber driver.

The Knowledge is not for delivery; it's for picking people up on the street (which is many times preferable to ordering Uber on your phone). I don't want my taxi driver to spend 2 minutes blocking the road while he enters the destination into the navigation app, nor doing it while s/he's driving.

[ghshephard]

Lots of places have a "License to Carry Passengers", and the purpose of that license is to prevent new drivers. It's not to protect passengers. I'm fine with requirements that protect passengers. I'm not fine with requirements whose sole purpose is to prevent new drivers.

Regarding the knowledge (yes, I know it's for black cab hails) - if you think that's useful, and are willing to pay the increased rates that result from the higher level of service (and as one who has taken London Cabs, I can attest it's a wonderful service, just not one I would be willing to pay for), then you should be free to pay for that service, in the same way that others should be free to provide and advertise it.

But don't make it a requirement to run a service like Uber/Lyft.

[tomp]

It's not useful/a service; it's a way of ensuring order on the road. You can't (legally and safely) use mobile phones while driving; and when taxis stop on the side of the road, they should resume driving ASAP, not wait until they finish typing the destination.

Regarding "app" services, I agree, it's not necessary as they can map the path in advance, but they can't replace the existing "taxi" service (i.e. hailing taxi) that way (and I feel it's reasonable for cities to protect that service to a certain extent).

[antihero]

> they are mind-blowing revolutionary disruptive innovation to this industry.

Why, because you can order and pay through an app? And they can offer lower prices as they're skirting the rules?

[ghshephard]

The major reasons why Uber/Lyft changed my life when ordering taxis:

o Single Contact point - I don't have to power dial a bunch of different services, or try and find out who is currently picking up in my region.

o Always, Always, Always a driver available. There were so many times when I just could never get a pickup on the peninsula. With Uber/Lyft, no matter how busy it is, or what concerts are playing, I can always get a ride. 100% of the time. (And yes, I know surge pricing makes those rides pricey, but I would much rather pay 3x or 4x and have a ride in 5 minutes than spend an hour to 90 minutes waiting for a cab. )

o When the driver/dispatch claims they are on the way - they always show up. Not only do they always show up, they show up reasonably on time. And, better yet, I can see if they are moving in my direction. That real-time car location technology is a major innovation.

o The feedback mechanism means I haven't been picked up by one psycho, or in one half-broken down vehicle yet. I'm not claiming they haven't existed on Uber/Lyft, I'm certain they have. But, those types of drives will be downvoted so quickly they'll cease to be a driver very quickly. With Taxis, I had a ton of drivers on the peninsula I dreaded being picked up by. One of them was frequently undergoing some weird psychotic episodes which had him shouting out to voices. Another was just an asshole. I frequently got into old cars with non-working windows, and often doors that would not open from the inside.

o No screwing around having to "pay through an app" - you don't pay - you just book your ride and get out at your destination. Particularly when you have a bunch of bags and stuff - that's awesome.

These are just a few of the reasons why Uber/Lyft changed everything. I can't believe anybody who frequently took taxis on the Peninsula would claim otherwise. Price is about #7 or #8 on the list.

[baddox]

Yes, absolutely.

[emodendroket]

> "Licensing to carry passengers" is definitely something I want to see disrupted. There is no value to me, or others, from having the the driver "licensed to carry passengers."

So you're cool with just getting in any old stranger's car? Really?

[ghshephard]

First, they are an Uber driver, so presumably they have at least filled in a form or applied. I know my Lyft drivers frequently have applied to be Uber drivers but haven't been approved, so there is clearly some type of process.

But, more importantly - how familiar are you with Taxi Drivers on the Peninsula. Many of them are very new to the valley, many of them have just started driving, and quite a few of them are scary, psychotic, or just plain mean. I have yet to have that experience with Uber/Lyft, and when I do, I expect my, and others feedback, to correct that situation immediately rather than have to deal with it for any prolonged period of time.

Also - think of the hundreds (thousands?) of people a day for the last 10 years who carpool over the bay bridge. In that situation, you truly are getting into an absolutely random strangers car. People don't seem to have any issues with that - and there is ZERO background check, tracking, or awareness of those people.

The world is not as scary as people seem to think it is - In terms of risks, the most dangerous thing is likely not your driver, but the fact that you are in a car in the first place. They kill 30,000+ people a year.

[emodendroket]

> First, they are an Uber driver, so presumably they have at least filled in a form or applied. I know my Lyft drivers frequently have applied to be Uber drivers but haven't been approved, so there is clearly some type of process.

There are background checks, but they are a joke.

[jamespo]

Mind-blowing? Really?

[minthd]

If taken to their limit(including sharing of trips), the economics would work so well that we could be talking about something that could replace the personal car in many many cases.

That would be revolutionary.

[ghshephard]

Yes - mind blowing. Perhaps because I've taken thousands of taxi rides, that even a hundred Uber/Lyft rides later, I still can't comprehend how wonderful it is to just push a button and see a car pull up. I wasted so much of my life waiting for taxis, many of whom never showed up, many of whom showed up 30 minutes late, and sometimes were never available - that Uber/Lyft just continue to blow my mind. Easily the most exciting use of my iPhone.