Hacker News Reader

Comment by jsmeaton | Hacker News Reader

The problem with regulation isn't Uber. It's the extraordinary costs required to operate a taxi - mostly the $200k plate. If I can get a background check and a card certifying me to be allowed to work with children for about $50, why does it cost nearly $200k to get a taxi license. Require licenses, reduce the costs to improve competition, and let the various companies compete on service.

View on HN

And yet in New Zealand, Uber is instructing its drivers to ignore the legal requirements for commercial passenger transport, which boil down to a background check, a license endorsement, and a more frequent warrent of fitness check.

Uber is opposed in principle to even the most minimal safety legislation.

Of course they are opposed. Uber demonstrates that regulation is unnecessary and generally harmful, and typically only exists to rip off consumers.

Taxi regulations typically limit supply (raising costs for consumers), protect drivers over passengers (in Vegas a complaint against drivers must be notarized), and protect favored ethnic groups (c.f. Shiv Sena's taxi law in Maharashtra). Can you name any contemporary real life problem that taxi regulators solve better than Uber's own regulators?

I'm aware that historically, taxi regulation purports to solve real problems. But I claim that in the modern economy, Uber has solved every single one of those problems better than regulators can.

Of all the cities I'm familiar with (NYC, Vegas, Chicago, Mumbai, Delhi, Pune, Bangalore, Kuala Lumpur), I can't think of a single instance where a regulated taxi gave me better consumer protections than Uber/Lift/Ola.

So again, the simple question: what problems that currently exist would regulation solve?

> Uber demonstrates that regulation is unnecessary and generally harmful, and typically only exists to rip off consumers.

And then to "prove" your point you completely ignore the case I discussed, presumably because it doesn't fit your pre-canned rant which would look more at home, frankly, on /r/hailcorporate.

> So again, the simple question: what problems that currently exist would regulation solve?

The one where I'd like to have a commercial driver held to the standard of passing a police background check, a heightened demonstration of driving competence, and a properly maintained vehicle, none of which I see any evidence of Uber particularly caring about.

Or the one where they appear to be criminal fraudsters? http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/uber-hired-inve...

Here's evidence that Uber cares about all those things in New Zealand:

http://auckland.ubermovement.com/uberx/

http://auckland.ubermovement.com/required-documents/

It looks as if your proposed regulation is not solving a real problem. Personal attacks don't change this.

I'm all in favor of regulation where it makes sense. If there's a problem that can demonstrably solved by regulation, I'm all in favor of it. But this hardly seems to be one of those situations.

Where are these places where taxi drivers have a heightened demonstration of driving competence and vehicles better maintained than Ubers?

Around here (metro Boston), I can be virtually certain that the cab will have at least warning light on the dash, have wheel bearings that audibly rattle, and the driver doesn't strike me as someone who has gone to extensive training nor seem to have a superior awareness of the traffic laws nor common traffic courtesies.

Sure, Uber demonstrates that regulation is generally harmful and typically rips off consumers, but doesn't that still allow a few worthy regulations. Say, drivers cannot have a recent conviction for a violent offence?

Uber and Lyft already require this in the US, according to a quick google search.

http://www.idrivewithuber.com/uber-driver-requirements/ https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/213585758-Requiremen...

In India, Uber now imposes a background check that drastically exceeds the regulatory minimum (police-issued "character certificate", approx an 8k bribe).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-09/uber-drive...

Sounds like criminals driving cars isn't currently a problem in the US. In India, it's a problem that regulators don't solve but Uber does.

So again, what problems that currently exist would regulation solve?

It is outrageously silly to compare Uber's self-regulation in an environment where it is surrounded by the constant threat of more intrusive government regulation; to it's hypothetical behavior in a hypothetical world where government regulation was not on the table.

One of the MAJOR positive spillover effects from government regulation is that companies self-police themselves more effectively, as part of their attempt to make sure they remain officially unregulated.

You could be right. Maybe the optimal policy would be for politicians to rattle their sabre in Uber's general direction while doing nothing.

Not sure if I understand your point. Unregulated taxi is a perfect market. What does this mean? No profit for the drivers. So what has happened over the last hundred years? Right, lobbying for market controls so that drivers can keep a part of the profits. Guess what will happen with Uber...!

Isn't $200k the free market cost? The government isn't pocketing that money. That's the price you would expect from an asset that generates income with a limited supply.

Edit: why am I down voted to max? The government limits supply but the medallions are still sold on the market.

No, the supply is artificially limited by the government; there's no free market involved. That $200k is paid to the government.

(The claimed rationale for limiting the number of taxis is to reduce traffic. I would suspect the actual rationale is to favor the existing taxi businesses that already have licenses and don't want competition.)

Are you talking specifically about Quebec here? This kind of thing varies a lot by jurisdiction, but in many jurisdictions the high costs for a plate are not paid to the government, but paid on a grey market to a prior owner, with the fee for registration being nominal except for the fact that no one gets to register any more. In many cities (including mine), people own plates as a retirement investment and are fighting deregulation because their investment will crater.

Not that this is any better, but people talk as if there's One Way taxi regulations work all over and there's quite a wide range on these things.

Also, the nominal reason for limiting plates is usually (as far as I've ever seen) to ensure a living wage for taxi drivers. I don't think it really works out that way, instead creating a class system where some people extract rent from other people.

The payment to the government is irrelevant. The point is that the government artificially restricts the number of occupational licenses.

I agree that it's not relevant who the wasted money goes to to the systemic effects, but it certainly implies a very different motive to say the government is taking that fee.

That is not true. If they were non transferable, a limited supply would still stay at the governmental set price.

Competition for the limited supply of licenses would manifest itself in other ways, resulting in $200,000 worth of economic resources being used, on average, to acquire a license.

More importantly, the high market price of a transferrable license indicates there is a shortage of taxis relative to demand for taxi service, which has a cost for the economy.

It's plainly obvious that the amount charged can't be related to the cost of the marginal traffic caused by the taxi. Even if you discount for the fact that a taxi is driving more often, it would mean that normal private car owners are inducing tens of thousands of dollars in negative externalities each year.

The 200K is not paid to the government but to the previous owner of the plate. So yes the price is dictated by demande/offer but you are true that by restricting the offer the are artificially raising the price of the plate.

When Uber started operating in Quebec the price of a plate in Montreal dropper to around 160K. That was the major point of dispute, since taxi drivers usually get loans to buy these plates knowing that they can re-sell then anytime. Uber changed that.

> That was the major point of dispute, since taxi drivers usually get loans to buy these plates knowing that they can re-sell then anytime. Uber changed that.

So fundamentally their complaint is: "My investment carried a risk"

> The claimed rationale for limiting the number of taxis is to reduce traffic.

The ratio of vehicles per person in Singapore is 0.18 (compare to about ~0.5 most places in the US). It's very easy to get a Taxi to any place not accessible by public transport. I would be astounded if there is any verifiable scientific study backing this claim.

[0] https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltaweb/corp/PublicationsR... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_vehicle...

I don't think it's true at all that it's easy to get a cab in Singapore.

If you're in the downtown area anytime close to rush hour it's practically impossible to get a cab without reserving one in advance (which costs extra), or waiting in line at a designated "taxi stand" for an unacceptably long time.

Personally I think that part of the reason the government no longer allows street hails downtown (even for cabs) is an acknowledgment of this problem.

Limited supply is government's doing.

Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

no, 200k is not a free market cost. yes, government is pocketing that money. limited supply - you mean uber drivers who are willing to offer services to riders?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com