Hacker News Reader

Comment by ptaipale | Hacker News Reader

It's good to care about taxi drivers, but not because they are taxi drivers.

Go back >200 years. In England, Spinning Jennies replaced weavers, and there were luddites who tried to resist, but the solution was not to start subsidizing weavers; and not even a specific tax to weaving machines to provide for the weavers specifically; the solution was to slowly build a social security system, and not just for master weavers (who had been relatively well off) but everyone.

Agreed, taxing one company to pay another does not make sense, but neither does subsidizing people of a certain profession just because they are no longer productive, by putting a burden on something productive just because it is better.

View on HN

>the solution was to slowly build a social security system

The Luddites were active around 1811 and welfare in the UK seems to have come in around 1906. The solutions at the time were closer to "suck it up". The government used "show trials intended to deter other Luddites from continuing their activities. By meting out harsh consequences, including, in many cases, execution and penal transportation, the trials quickly ended the movement."

That was the era of Charles Dickens and workhouses for the poor.

> putting a burden on something productive just because it is better

What aspect of Uber is better than a regular taxi? I can hail taxis from my phone just as well. They take me to the destination. I think Uber found a way to subsidize their fleet with drivers own cars and not pay some taxes to the state which the regular taxi drivers have to pay. Maybe I am missing something...

Yep, I don't get it either.

taxi |ˈtaksi| noun ( pl. taxis ) a motor vehicle licensed to transport passengers in return for payment of a fare and typically fitted with a taximeter.

Uber is a taxi service. Uber _is_ licensed in the sense that they are allowed to operate.

Saying Uber isn't a taxi service is a load of dingos kidneys, in my arrogant opinion.

Regulations typically distinguish taxis, which can pick up street hails, from car/bus/limo services, which are pre-arranged or pre-scheduled. Bus and limo drivers also "drive people for money" (and even for buses, sometimes charge by distance), but aren't subject to taxi regs.

And that's not an arbitrary distinction: much of the danger and public interest in cans arises from grabbing randos off the street. As car/limo services track that info remotely, they merit correspondingly less regulation.

Ah, yes indeed, very good point, thanks for clearing that up for me.

Works globally, processes payments, eliminates bad drivers.

The last bit is problematic, as one of the criticisms against them is that they don't eliminate the bad drivers. People drive with all sorts of criminal records which they tried to spin as something positive.

"Bad driver" has a wider meaning than "has a criminal record".

If that driver with a criminal record keeps their rating high enough to keep driving, what's the problem? A reformed criminal who drives safely and is pleasant to their passengers would be better than half the taxi drivers I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with

A driver with criminal record is not the same thing as a bad driver.

In many senses, being able to provide meaningful jobs to people with a criminal record is actually a service to the society. At least in my opinion, the idea of punishment is also rehabilitation, not that once you've been convicted of a crime, you could never be trusted with a job where you are in contact with other people or money or anything.

So if Uber can hire them, and even their customer feedback is positive, that is a good thing.

In my area, Uber is better because their drivers don't treat me like shit - and I'm not talking about being servile, but simply greeting me back and not ranting the whole way about how rides should be $20 minimum. Before Uber, I took a taxi only in emergencies, simply because it was more often than not an unpleasant experience.

Their association is also corrupt as hell, so they can't even claim that over Uber.

I had an unpleasant Uber experience a few months ago where my driver illegally drove in a bike lane to make a right turn at a light, cutting off another car at the light that was legally trying to proceed right. The two drivers got into a verbal altercation that lasted for another light, and then my driver was ranting about it for the rest of the entire drive. I got the feeling that the Uber driver used to be a yellow cab driver who was doing the same thing now but without a medallion. I should point out that driving in the bike lane was especially infuriating to me because I bike every day, whereas I almost never take cars.

The big difference between Uber and cabs, however, is that I left the driver a negative review on Uber, and their customer support got back to me. If he keeps pulling that crap he's not going to be able to drive for Uber anymore. There's essentially no recourse for cab drivers. Sure, they may have contact info posted for their company by law, but if you try to contact them you won't reach anyone who cares.

illegally drove in a bike lane to make a right turn at a light, cutting off another car at the light that was legally trying to proceed right

Diverging off-topic, and your account is light on specifics needed for this divergence...

http://pedalfortcollins.com/righthandturns/

Good point. Rules of the road regarding right turns and bike lanes vary depending on jurisdiction. But even though your link was for Colorado and I'm in northern Europe, the rule is the same: a right-turning car actually should merge into bike lane.

So, sometimes it could be that the Uber (or taxi) driver knows more about the rules of the road that the passenger, and when the passenger complains based on wrong understanding of traffic law, it's not an easy customer-serving situation.

To be clear, I didn't say anything at all. The driver was ranting at me and I didn't want any part of it.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to use a bike lane to cut off another car that's already stopped at an intersection. Keep in mind this is a road that has a single travel lane in each direction -- there isn't a separate right-turning lane.

I can't find specifics on NYC -- any ideas? Regardless, I don't think it's acceptable to use a bike lane to cut off another vehicle that's already stopped at the light indicating a turn when there is only one car travel lane. The Uber barely slipped through.

What aspect of Uber is better than a regular taxi?

For one thing, with Uber, those of us who don't live in a major metro area don't have to wait 30-60 minutes for a cab that might or might not even show up. There's always an available Uber driver nearby.

Think about it. How would Uber have gotten any traction in the marketplace if it weren't better than the incumbent taxi operators in some substantial ways?

The fare is computed by the central system, so you can't be scammed by a cabbie who secretly puts on the night fare etc. Although, I was once scammed out of a couple pounds by an Uber driver who said I need to reimburse him the entrance fee on the airport (a couple pounds paid at the gate), and it turns out Uber charged me that fee as well.

One could argue that Uber can offer lower rates by having higher utilisation -- those people who are part time Uber drivers clock on at peak times. However, I think this argument is specious, because most uber drivers are full time.

I would argue that the reputation system for drivers (and passengers) is an improvement over the current taxi system. The online booking system (app) is massively better than any taxi booking system I've used. These are strong incentives.

Obviously taxi systems involve paying the state for a licence to operate, but the ~500k price (depending on location) is solely due to an articficial scarcity. There needs to be some external regulation, so Uber/etc should pay some per trip/km charge.

One of the biggest problems with Uber and Taxis is insurance. Basically this cost/risk is being directly transferred to the driver, who may have no assets. It isn't acceptable for a service like this to have un-covered liabilities.

The other big gap is that Uber and Taxi companies have terrible employment practices. Failure to pay payroll tax is only the tip of the iceberg.

(Note: most of the below applies to Lyft as well.)

> What aspect of Uber is better than a regular taxi?

Higher-quality, rated drivers. Single app that works consistently everywhere. Better reporting mechanism for problems, that also works consistently everywhere. Live mapping of the vehicle picking you up. Payment handled automatically and consistently everywhere. No payment step inside the vehicle.

> I can hail taxis from my phone just as well.

Using one app per city (if the city even has one), or a phone number (vastly worse, and you need to look it up), with the experience varying vastly in different locations. Uber and Lyft work identically everywhere.

> What aspect of Uber is better than a regular taxi?

It's wildly cheaper (1/4-1/2 the price, depending on UberPool vs UberX), the app is more convenient (faster/easier to activate for a ride, better feedback while waiting), and if there's a problem with the ride of some sort, I'd rather deal with Uber than some random city's department of livery licensing. Not driving in a clapped-out Crown Vic with loose wheel bearings and 3-5 warning lights on the dash is a bonus.

For most people, more convenient and absurdly cheaper is enough to answer your question.

Taxis in some places have awful service and blatantly ignore the law. Extrapolating from my experience, nearly every credit card reader in a taxi in Philadelphia is broken even though they must be working, and has been for years. As such I use Uber there 100% of the time, even when a taxi is available. By contrast, somehow, NYC cabs virtually always have working equipment - and there I use taxis for the majority of car trips.

I get the feeling that the regulations in NYC have more teeth to them. The medallions are very costly, and you risk losing many days of profitability on them if your equipment isn't up to snuff.

You've never taken an Uber. For your own market education try it sometime.

> there were luddites who tried to resist, but the solution was not to start subsidizing weavers

It is not fair to history to keep repeating that. The historical luddites were not against technological change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com