[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.