[matthewmacleod]

Stop this Randian nonsense. There are perfectly valid reasons to regulate taxi services - such as ensuring that passengers are safe, or that they aren't ripped off. Those requirements are beneficial as a whole.

It's perfectly valid to question whether or not the current regime in various places has been effective at achieving these goals. It's also fine to change the way it all works. But dismissing it out of hand like this is purposefully, dangerously ignorant.

[twoodfin]

Stop this Randian nonsense.

This is the kind of unnecessarily provocative embellishment that HN guidelines specifically call out:

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

[matthewmacleod]

You're correct, of course. That said, it can be difficult to maintain composure in the face of purposeful ignorance.

[fennecfoxen]

On the other hand, a blind devotion to the regulations in question without reference to passengers' overall well-being and ability to afford a ride is equally nonsense, and a common feature of the current regime's defense of itself. (For instance, when all the London taxi drivers were complaining about Uber using boring reasons about taximeters).

[DanBC]

Your London example is poor: Uber is free to operate in London.

Uber drivers who want to be hailed from the street or use a meter need to i) use the correct meter; ii) use a wheelchair accessible vehicle; iii) "do the knowledge".

Uner drivers have an alternitive. They could operate as minicabs. That allows them to use the app for booking; they don't need to have wheelchair accessible vehicles and they don't need to do the knowledge. But it does mean that they can't use a meter for pricing - they need to be able to agree a price before they journey starts.

"Things that control or store money" (payphones, vending machines, ticket machines, taxi meters, gambling and TOTE machines) are all high profile targets for criminal gangs and for people wishing to commit fraud. It's probably a good thing that a limited range of taxi meters is allowed to be used, although the current system of assessing and approving meters is probably sub-optimal.

[fennecfoxen]

As if to prove my point, snazzy arguments made without reference to the customer's well-being!

Why must a prospective Uber customer be forced to pay specifically for "the knowledge" (an insane, financially risky, multi-year investment in human capital) to have access to cars running a variable fare business model? How do they benefit from having their choices restricted like this? But with Uber, the case of "unsuspecting user gets ripped off" is a lot harder to make.

I mean sure, when it comes to privileging a set of drivers with the power to take street hails you have a good excuse about protecting random tourists from ostentatious fraud. But requiring that all variable-fare hails have the Knowledge? Seriously? That's incumbent-protection and nothing else.

[justincormack]

But London already has deregulated taxis (minicabs) that Uber could perfectly well follow the regulations for (ie quote price upfront).

[matthewmacleod]

Agreed that there's a much wider issue to examine, because taxi services could really use an overhaul. Though I don't agree that the London case is particularly boring. The London taxi racket argued that Uber was violating the rules on minicab services not having taximeters (and that's a legitimately arguable point). That's how this sort of thing gets resolved; either we decide "yes, that rule is outdated, let's change it" or "no, we've got that rule for a reason which is still valid, Uber needs to change."

[DanBC]

"The London Taxi racket"[1] were not just arguing about meters. They were also arguing about wheelchair and guide-dog accessibility.

[1] is language like that useful?

[matthewmacleod]

Sure, that was just one of the examples. These are all valid points for argument – one of the benefits of regulation is ensuring that taxi services are accessible.

[donatj]

IF you don't like Ubers pricing or safety mechanisms take a different taxi. That IS the point. More competition is always better. You don't need mother government to control everything and make the whole world "fair". Grow up and take responsibility for yourself. If there's room for competition there will be cheaper and "safer" alternatived.

Are there cases of uber driver on passenger violence and if so how do they compare to licensed taxi driver on passenger violence statistically? This just feels like fear mo getting from the anxiety ridden to though.

I honestly don't understand how you can be on a news site for start ups and be against fair competition.

[matthewmacleod]

IF you don't like Ubers pricing or safety mechanisms take a different taxi. That IS the point

This is a reductive and overly simplistic view that invites that total absence of regulation of any services.

The problem is that consumers are unfortunately not well informed, and that 'fair competition' is extraordinarily difficult to maintain in practice. That's why regulation happens in the first place – to prevent the worst excesses of the market.

I honestly don't understand how you can be on a news site for start ups and be against fair competition.

Then stretch yourself a little harder. Nobody's against fair competition - is it that hard to believe that some people feel fair competition is most effectively achieved not through uncontrolled free markets, but through broadly free markets with some state intervention to ensure a fair playing field? That's not too left-field, and it's the principle that every western state is operating on.

[anon1385]

If Uber drivers do not have valid insurance[1] then the only "choice" I can make to avoid that is to not use public highways at all (an uninsured Uber driver can crash into me even if I'm not an Uber customer). I'm sorry but arguing for filling the roads with uninsured drives is just sociopathic.

I honestly can't understand how an adult in the 21st century can arguing against vehicle insurance. You don't even own a stake in Uber! You are arguing for adding uninsured drivers to the roads that you use, just to make other people rich. It's not even in your own self interest. Talk about irrational.

[1] e.g. because they have regular non-commercial insurance that isn't valid when operating a taxi, and Uber fails to check that their drivers are insured or educate them about what insurance they need. This has been a common complaint against Uber in various jurisdictions.

[dchest]

I'm sorry but arguing for filling the roads with uninsured drives is just sociopathic.

It's not sociopathic. There are (and were) countries where driver insurance is not compulsory. I lived in one, and it wasn't that bad. If you want to be sure that you get paid for damage, that's what insurance is for — insure yourself.

[justincormack]

Well Sweden does not regulate taxi pricing at all, they have to display prices but there is no price control.

[dchest]

How can it be that it's perfectly valid to "question the current regime" and "the way it all works", but not the existence of licenses? Did you just randomly defined bounds of the discussion that we can have, and called everything outside of those bounds dangerously ignorant?

[matthewmacleod]

No. Blanket rejection of the existence of licenses – "There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence" – is not useful at all. There are, objectively, justifications for requiring a license.

[pgeorgi]

The problem with 'questioning the existence of licenses' is that Uber always plays the same tune, world wide - even if those licenses work very different in different locales.

Not every taxi system works as bad as San Francisco's and in some areas (eg in Germany), when counting by the numbers Uber is the bully: tons of money and international reach vs. regional taxi companies with a handful of cars.

People tend to be quite opposed to 'rent-seeking schemes' on hn. Except when it comes to Uber, which is _the_ example of a rent seeking, as the 20% parasite between customers and drivers while trying to tear down the advantages of the existing system that get in their way (safety regulations, accessibility guarantees).