Uber vs Taxis: The New Urban Warfare

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Uber vs Taxis: The New Urban Warfare

Soy Division: Aug 12, 2004

I have to laugh at the people who think taxi regulations actually ensure taxis are well-maintained and drivers safe. Maybe in some jurisdictions but not most of them.

In DC pre-Uber it was not unusual to see taxis with failing suspensions and 500,000+ miles on the clock. Sexual harassment by taxi drivers was frequent, to the degree that every single woman I know switched to Uber almost immediately after its introduction. Want to hail a cab if you're black or in a neighborhood even remotely associated with crime? Good luck. Getting a taxi on call was virtually impossible unless you were personal friends with a cab driver or used a VA taxi company - only feasible for airport runs.

Also, a lot of taxi regulations are legally questionable, but until Uber moves into a market it doesn't have standing to challenge them in court. In DC the taxicab commission was ready to go to war with Uber but they backed down drat quickly once the feds suggested there might be antitrust concerns.

Soy Division fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Jul 24, 2014

# ¿ Jul 24, 2014 06:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 18, 2024 18:43

Soy Division: Aug 12, 2004

Trabisnikof posted:

The issue is in VA is actually that Uber refuses to even apply for licenses as a "for-hire carrier". Also Uber had been notified they needed a permit 6 months before the C&D order. How is uber not a "for-hire carrier"? You can read the rather reasonable C&D here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/228346599/Uber-Cease-and-Desist

Obviously, Uber has a different opinion to the DMV. If the DMV really wants Uber to cease operations, they can go to court. It's almost like courts exist to settle disputes over the applicability or validity of various laws!

# ¿ Jul 24, 2014 06:47

Soy Division: Aug 12, 2004

Trabisnikof posted:

Are you arguing that Uber isn't a "for-hire carrier"? Or just be stubborn that a company should be able to do what it wants until a court forces it to follow the law?

I'm not familiar with the vagaries of transport regulations in various states, but the fact that most of these regulators haven't yet gone to court suggests that they are less than 100% confident that their systems would withstand close legal scrutiny.

Let's recall, for example, that DC's tour guide licensing law was recently struck down by the DC Court of Appeals. Until a tour company decided not to license their guides, there was no-one with standing to challenge the law. I'm sure we can all agree that tour guide licensing is an utterly ridiculous form of regulation.

Also here's what the FTC, which is the main federal antitrust and consumer protection regulator, had to say to the DC Taxicab Commission when they were considering an explicit ban on Uber:

http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/06/ftc-staff-submits-comments-dc-taxicab-commission-proposed

quote:

Federal Trade Commission staff submitted written comments to the District of Columbia Taxicab Commission (DCTC) on proposed rulemakings regarding passenger motor vehicle transportation services, including rules that would apply to new smartphone software applications for arranging and paying for such services. The staff comments note that recent DC legislation appears designed to facilitate new and beneficial forms of competition for the services, but express concern that some of the subsequent rules proposed by DCTC may unnecessarily impede competition.

The staff comments recommend that DCTC avoid unwarranted regulatory restrictions on competition, and that any regulations should be no broader than necessary to address legitimate public safety and consumer protection concerns. For example, regarding a proposal to restrict how software applications can affiliate with taxicab operators, the comments recommend that DCTC allow for flexibility and experimentation and avoid unnecessarily limiting how consumers can obtain taxis.

Regarding proposed rules addressing disclosure and data security issues that applications may raise, the comments note that requiring certain advance disclosures or provision of certain information in a receipt may be efficient ways to promote pricing transparency, protect consumers from misleading pricing practices, and help avoid or resolve significant consumer confusion. Staff recommends, however, that any such disclosure requirements be reasonably tailored to avoid unnecessarily inhibiting the entry and operation of applications. The comments also emphasize that applications should implement security practices that are reasonable and appropriate in light of the types of information they collect, the risks and vulnerabilities they face, and associated implementation costs.

The Commission vote approving the comments was 4-0.

Soy Division fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Jul 24, 2014

# ¿ Jul 24, 2014 07:33

Soy Division: Aug 12, 2004

Nintendo Kid posted:

There's nothing vague, in Virginia, if you run a business where the business is to hire out cars and drivers to people who want to go somewhere, you are a for-hire carrier and must submit to the rules or else you can lose your license and get fined.

And there is 0 way that an Uber driver isn't participating in a for-hire carrier business.

Right and I think in that case Uber would say they're a platform, not a carrier, and the burden of licensing is on their drivers.

tsa posted:

These services are powered by clueless twenty-somethings who are driving cars most likely subsidized by daddy. Wear and tear? Self employment tax? Risk? What's that? I bet some people don't even break min wage in some states once all the expenses are dealt with.

Funny, I've taken uberX maybe 10-20 times and only once did my driver fit that description.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2014 07:50

Soy Division: Aug 12, 2004

Trabisnikof posted:

That's my exact point. I'm not familiar with the nuances of the regulation, but I'm pretty drat sure that the California Public Utilities Commission or the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles has a pretty good idea of what the regulations and laws are. Let Uber sue if they feel harmed by these regulations as they exist or use the democratic process to change them if their suit has no merit.

Those organizations have a vested interest in interpreting the laws in a way that maximizes their power.

Also, Uber doesn't have standing to sue until they start operating and they are told to stop. Is this concept that hard to understand?

# ¿ Jul 24, 2014 07:53

Soy Division: Aug 12, 2004

Trabisnikof posted:

Then why hasn't uber sued? They've been told to stop and their position is they will keep operating. Why didn't uber apply for a permit and sue when it was rejected then?

Maybe there are negotiations going on behind the scenes? Who knows, all that is clear is neither side has seen fit to take it to court.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2014 07:56

Soy Division: Aug 12, 2004

disheveled posted:

Gold and a Pager really nailed it with the typical consumer viewpoint. The people using and defending UberX just want a "no bullshit" experience at the same price point as taxis. Honestly, I'd pay a higher fare if taxis adopted an Uber-like hailing, fare calculating, and rating system.

Something obscured in this discussion is that Uber also lets you hail taxis in some cities!

BTW I now live in a city with both a functional taxi system and Uber and I have yet to use Uber.

# ¿ Jul 25, 2014 04:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 18, 2024 18:43

Soy Division: Aug 12, 2004

twodot posted:

Is there good evidence these laws work? The sorts of people that can be long hauled (people unfamiliar to the region) also seem like the people least likely to aware of flat-rates. There's been anecdotes of cab drivers lying about where the borders of flat-rate zones are, and implementing new laws to stop people who were violating old laws (long hauling is to my knowledge disallowed anywhere that has taxis) is always suspicious to me.

Zones were a huge disaster in DC, there's all kinds of ways drivers can scam the zone system - lying to tourists who don't know the city geography, taking alternate routes that cover as many zones as possible, etc.

# ¿ Aug 5, 2014 08:19

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Uber vs Taxis: The New Urban Warfare