Hacker News Reader

Comment by CPLX | Hacker News Reader

Because hailing drivers who will then stop in a street full of cars trying to drive somewhere is inherently disruptive and unsafe, at least most of the time. It's challenging with taxis too, but those at least are bright yellow with extra flashing lights on the roof, and theoretically some extra training or at least experience.

If you live in NYC you'll learn quickly that there are a lot of rules and regulations that are just necessary because of the sheer number of people here. Other closely analogous situations are the ruthlessness of parking enforcement, or the draconian laws about street vending, and so on.

People here do understand that the sort of laissez faire approach that would theoretically be more "free" for everyone is not necessarily feasible in a city this dense and interconnected.

View on HN

Certainly there are valid considerations for infrastructure design and regulations regarding where hailing can be conducted, but if it's okay for a customer to hail a cab from Company A at particular location, I don't see a valid reason for not allowing Uber to do the same. I find your color argument unconvincing, but even if it were valid, I'm sure Uber and their drivers would be open to putting identification on their cars if it granted them access to desirable customers. Additionally, it's not as if increased competition among firms who can respond to a hailing customer will inherently increase congestion due to street hailing. This would only be true if existing companies were (a) underserving the market so significantly that the ability to hail additional cabs from the curb allowed previously unmet demand to be satisfied, or (b) demand for street hailing itself were to increase. I think (a) is possible, though unlikely, because hailing from an app is generally more convenient than standing on a curb and flagging down cabs. I think the same would apply for (b). If anything, companies like Uber provide a way to more safely and efficiently pick up passengers without relying on street hailing.

So all uber drivers would have to do is paint their cars yellow and stick flashing lights on the roof and it would be ok?

Really, I find it hard to believe this is about safety and not about economics.

It's about both, clearly. I was responding to this comment:

> There is no valid reason other than it undermines the rents...

And I pointed out that yes, actually there are other valid reasons.

Not having every square inch of city streets covered by circling taxis and for hire cars is another reason.

The fact that taxis have regulated and inspected meters that prevent people from getting ripped off on the fare charged is yet another reason (and an excellent one I might add).

In response ot the inspected meters.

You can see a fare estimate on the app before you even call in an uber. I think if they were able to do pickups, the driver's phone could easily display some sort of meter for riders, and even do predictions before transaction is even confirmed.

Yes, we have that problem in Mexico city, a long time ago a city Mayor gave the Taxi Union thousands of temporal permits (basically a piece of paper!) just to earn votes for his party, few years forward we have thousands of "pirate" taxis, more than the original permits because you know xerox machines, those unregulated taxis often commit crimes like assaults, thief or rape, and are able to get away because they don't have license plates or have fake ones. The last two mayors have started to crack down on pirate taxis, but you know what actually started to make them disappear? Uber.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com