10 ms·

Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

46 points by titlex 13y ago

Shivetya 13y ago
Last I read the bill in Georgia didn't clear the House on crossover day which is the last day a bill can be passed on to the Georgia Senate. With regards to the restrictions, the primary backers of the bill in Georgia were existing limo companies. I would be surprised if similar groups are not the reasons for the problems such companies face in other states.
digitalengineer 13y ago
Same as AirBNB. If you can't beat them... lobby to ban them.
- Fede_V 13y ago
  I'm fine with abolishing almost all those regulations - they are a huge barrier to entry, and they serve very little public good. However, hotel rooms are highly taxed, while most AirBNB rooms are not - apartment rents are often rented at submarket prices under rent-control schemes, yet the tenants charge full fair to rent out their rooms. Right now, AirBNB and Uber are basically trying to avoid all regulations by pretending to be just middlemen, but that argument is transparently bullshit.
  - bertil 13y ago
    The intermediary argument is over-used, but I doubt AirBnB is trying to fight hotel on the cost aspect: most of the time, they tend to be similarly priced. They don’t really recommend price at all. My impression was more that hotels (like taxis) abuse the market by strangling the offer, and forcing people to upgrade when they don’t care about luxury. The company was started to help political operative (the most amenable form of interns) to find a dry place to nap during conferences: that sounds like a specific, unaddressed need rather than a tax evasion scheme. > highly taxed, while most AirBNB rooms are not - apartment rents are often rented at submarket prices under rent-control schemes, Actually, the handful of people operating ‘hotel-like’ plans (short-term flat-share, really) that you refer too are always doing it from recently build, not rent controlled, purchased flats, for all sort of reasons; they all explicitly mention that operating anything significant from a rent-controlled flat will get you out in the street faster than you can list your flat. The classic case is this ‘let’s limit the number of license for safety reasons’: if you want high-grade manure, that is top-shelf bullshit. I went to San Francisco once, and I never felt so much in danger than in that cab: no seat belts, speed limits were for the wuss that he was honking at through-out, he gave multi-tasking an Olympic status; even looking at the (packed) road was too much for him. To the point we felt the need to call the company, if anything to make sure whomever would surely die in there soon would have proper insurance. Let’s say we were told in no uncertain terms that we were alive, therefore our livelihood was not supposed to be our concern. Same for rats in hotels: I don't mind an accident, but I expect action, not denial. I don’t understand how limiting the market is going to have a positive impact on service when the human touch is… lacking. I chose AirBnB because they had interesting features, as in, creative business model that make they offer relevant to XXIst century dweller: personal contact, restaurant recommendations from our host that make sense, a Wifi router that I can physically access when it needs rebooting, free access to kitchen that won’t charge me a day’s worth of wage to toast two slices of bread at night, significant rebate when staying more than a couple of days. > hotel rooms are highly taxed, while most AirBNB rooms are not As you point out: they are intermediaries, and I’m positive they wouldn’t care charging extra tax. I would put them on a list, and that list could be artificially limited, making them possible victim of a lobbying effort by hotel chains who want to keep a stronghold on a market, rather than admit it has evolved and adapt -- so I understand their reservations. But passing taxes is generally a business-neutral act, so I doubt they care that much. Once again: look and compare, they are not trying to be cheaper than hotels.
    - Fede_V 13y ago
      A few things: - There's been several reports of SF landlords kicking out tenants from rent controlled apartments to lease out rooms on AirBnB. While I am against rent control (it's a terrible system that creates a few winners and fucks over most people who cannot get such a flat) it's obvious that this is an abuse of the system - Until recently, AirBnB fought tooth and nail against paying hotel taxes. I think safety regulations are mostly overkill, and I'd get rid of most of them in a heartbeat, but while those regulations exist, you cannot simply outcompete other players that are forced to follow regulations you avoid.
      - bertil 13y ago
        > There's been several reports of SF landlords kicking out tenants from rent controlled apartments to lease out rooms on AirBnB. That’s the opposite scenario of the one describe initially. > Until recently, AirBnB fought tooth and nail against paying hotel taxes. > I think safety regulations You appear to be conflating taxes (that do nothing for the end user, if increase budget pressure on safety and service) and safety -- and ignoring the fact that what is generally actually enforced are quotas. There is no significant taxes on taxis for instance: it's in every case I’ve heard about a self-enforced tacit price for recommending someone for a licence once you quit; the actual tax exist, but is generally negligible. > while those regulations exist, you cannot simply outcompete other players that are forced to follow regulations you avoid. Actually, if your service include a reporting tool, the HUGE and unquestionably largest addition of both AirBnB and Uber, but before them eBay, you end up having to follow far stricter practice that include service, and that, unlike regulations, can adapt. Price control, quota, safety regulation, user reports… if you confuse those, you end up presenting a false dichotomy between two ways of organising a service.
iselkow 13y ago
What are the arguments in favor of this regulation? I'm sure that anti-competition lobbies from limos, cabs, etc. play a role, but is there something safety-related as well? And if so, why would 150 Lyft drivers be safer than 400 Lyft drivers?
- joeblau 13y ago
  The arguments in favor are that the taxi cab companies and the local governments have a deal going on. A regular cab pays taxes and fees to the government and if people stop taking regular cabs, all of a sudden a stream of revenue stops coming in. Also, cab companies are losing a lot of drivers and business to services like UberX, Lyft and Sidecar. I've been in many UberX cars in San Francisco where the driver is actually a cab driver, but just hates the way the cab business is run. The cab companies have an inferior business model and lobbying is the way they compete. Welcome to the political game.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- patio11 13y ago
  I don't subscribe to it, but: Taxis negotiated their monopoly by giving us concessions for e.g. universal service (a taxi, unlike most businesses, is obligated to serve any customer regardless of whether their custom is the most profitable use of the taxi's time). This allows us to depend on taxis as an outsourced component of our public transportation infrastructure. If competition creams the really desirable fairs away from taxis, that might kill taxis. DSX has no desire to implement universal service and never will. This will adversely affect our most vulnerable citizens, like little old ladies who depend on the $3.50 fare to the local supermarket (whose custom taxi drivers hate) due to limited mobility. How can we be sure drivers at DSX have adequate insurance, safe driving records, and obey the traffic laws? DSX says that they have adequate procedures in place, but DSX has basically designed those procedures itself, and on the face of it DSX seems to operate under accept-everyone-and-weed-out-underperformers, which still means that at any given time there are dozens of commercial drivers who we know nothing about operating on the streets of our fair city. We depend on "if you screw up, you lose your medallion" to discipline taxi owners (as opposed to operators) in this city. "If you screw up, your account gets deleted and you have to move to a competing provider" doesn't apply the same level of incentive. If Disruptive Service X (DSX) will let literally anybody with a car start working for them, how can we be sure that DSX isn't a summon-a-rapist app? Cars present a higher risk of rape/kidnapping than e.g. barber salons (n.b. which we also regulate), since a) they move and b) the passenger generally doesn't have a convenient escape out of the door.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
CurtHagenlocher 13y ago
I'm genuinely curious: what is it that distinguishes these services from taxis? Why is it okay for one to be regulated but not the other -- or do proponents of these services generally think that taxis shouldn't be regulated either?
- icebraining 13y ago
  Regulations is not a yes or no question. Many proponents of such services are OK with certain regulations (e.g. safety), while being opposed to others (caps on number of vehicles). Others are simply opposed to all industry-specific regulations, and a few are opposed to the concept of the State as a whole ;) And yes, as far as I've read, many are opposed to caps on all taxis, not just on Uber/Lyft.
- lambda 13y ago
  Taxis can be flagged down on the street. All you have to go on is that it looks like a taxi, and has a medallion. If they aren't part of a regulated system with mandatory fares, medallion numbers, safety regulations, you have no idea what you'd be getting into when you flag one down without some kind of regulation. These, instead, generally count as livery services. If you are calling a specific business to be picked up, you know who you're dealing with ahead of times, and can check their rates, choose based on their reputation, etc. At least in Boston, Uber drivers are regulated, but as livery not as taxis, as you "call" them rather than hailing them directly on the street.
  - CurtHagenlocher 13y ago
    Thanks, this is what I was looking for. There's a livery service in Seattle called "Seattle Town Car" and now I'm wondering what kind of regulation they face. From what I can tell, Seattle isn't quite a city like Chicago or New York where being able to flag down a cab on the street is both common and important, and I wonder to what extent that plays into the dynamic. I wasn't generally interested in attacking or defending regulation as such, but the most compelling thing I've heard in favor of regulation is that livery services don't have the same legal obligation as taxi companies to offer vehicles which can serve handicapped people.
Dirlewanger 13y ago
Fuck, I sincerely hope our generation (early-mid 20s) do not react like crusty sheltered curmudgeons in 15-30 years when they occupy these positions of power and are confronted with something they've never seen before. I'm not too hopeful though. One of the few constants in life is that while individually people may change, groups of them rarely do.
- riggins 13y ago
  of course existing companies are going to fight back by any means possible. You can't expect them to lay down a carpet for Uber.
- rmc 13y ago
  Highly likely. Remember what happened when the 1960s generation of free love and drugs got in power and legalised weed, and promoted sex? Yeah me either
  - cle 13y ago
    Maybe our perception of the 1960s generation is a good example of the spotlight fallacy.
  - yardie 13y ago
    You highly overestimate the influence that hippies had on the day to day of that era. Those guys are still into free love and weed. They just do it from inside the safety of their communes.
  - benched 13y ago
    That's like expecting the goth subculture to result in more eyeliner in congress one day.
- dclowd9901 13y ago
  I think it's likely that there is a correlation between the longevity of a person, and their level of conservativeness. Wouldn't surprise me if most older people are, by nature, pretty restrictive.
- 13y ago
Joe8Bit 13y ago
Looking at the debates there are in local governments in the US, it's interesting to look at how Uber has been received in London. In London, we've had a setup for licensing 'mini-cabs' for almost a decade (and they've been around for far longer than that). In essence, they are all registered and regulated by a central authority, in a similar (but much less strict) way to London's famous black cabs. The difference being that mini-cabs are normal cars, that must be prebooked. In that sense Uber fit right in, they're just another (one of 100's, if not 1000's) mini-cab providers. So for us in London, Uber hasn't really been revelatory at all except in the app driven aspects of their service (which is great). There's always been a tension between liveried cabs and these 'mini-cabs' in London, and that's something that's been really interesting to see played out in different markets in the US. Especially when it's tied to the more prevalent laissez-faire attitude that the US has to market regulation.
- drabiega 13y ago
  That laissez-faire attitude, to the extent it exists at all, is generally only aimed at the federal and to a lesser degree state level. At the local level the voter involvement is so low that corruption and pandering to special interests are the norm.
jheriko 13y ago
it is sad to see this but thoroughly unexpected. all these useful and innovative startups are great, but they need to learn the most basic respect for the law and its spirit. this is the nth time something like this has happened in the startup community and its embarassing. we have taxi driver licenses and regulations for a reason. naivete isn't an excuse for blatantly circumventing them - even if you provide a genuinely useful service that we would all like to see grow and help redefine our futures...
- jheriko 13y ago
  oh wait ... that should have been 'expected'
droopyEyelids 13y ago
In Chicago all taxi drivers must obtain a Chauffeur's License before driving. The Chauffeur's license exam includes background checks, tests for common infectious diseases (tuberculosis), and a basic knowledge test of the city. Uber does background checks, but they don't test for TB and I've had three UberX drivers that didn't know where Lake Michigan was when we were two blocks away from it. Also, licensed taxi drivers have a number that you can report to 311 for safety purposes. I think Uber could have avoided a portion of this backlash if it would have taken more steps to ensure safety-parity while side-stepping the medallion limitations.
- barclay 13y ago
  Not to sound like the classic idealist libertarian, but isn't this how uber and lyft will be better? You ride with someone who's clueless or an asshole, rate them 1-star, the ratings compound, and unless they improve quickly they're tossed out of the driver pool. Immediate impact.
  - null_ptr 13y ago
    The whole point of stricter examinations is to avoid 1-star drivers to begin with.
  - lmg643 13y ago
    I think the rating is a pretty weak way to address issues like this. I'm a big fan of Uber, but the insistent ratings are really annoying. For example - I take a ride, the car is fine, the driver is a little annoying, there is traffic and but we get there. Is that a "5" star ride? a 4 star ride? a 3 star ride? To me, 3 stars is average. to Uber, 3 stars is "you're fired." doesn't make sense. Not to mention - how the heck would I know if he was vaccinated? that's just gross to contemplate. What if we rate him a 5, but then i get hospitalized with some crazy sickness later? and I thought taxis were dirty - i take it back. Maybe public health officials might know something after all.
- sanctuslibre 13y ago
  Do you understand that if people care about these things, they won't use Uber? Before reading your comment, I didn't know cab companies tested for TB and I never thought to care. If TB were a problem in cabs, I would care, and I would use a cab service that tested its drivers.
ameister14 13y ago
Limiting the number of drivers Uber or Lyft is allowed to have working in an area is short term thinking, likely promoted in large part by existing taxi and limo companies that want to keep their businesses going. It's nothing compared to the regulatory push the teamsters will make when automated trucks begin to take on the existing industry. That said, I think it's a good lesson for SV companies and a warning to count on and prepare for government reaction to new technologies effect on regular jobs.
sanctuslibre 13y ago
It is surprising that on a news site focused around entrepreneurial capitalism in technology, the majority of the commenters are statist by default. Have you not heard libertarian/free market arguments on this topic or have you found them unconvincing?

46 points by titlex 13y ago

Last I read the bill in Georgia didn't clear the House on crossover day which is the last day a bill can be passed on to the Georgia Senate. With regards to the restrictions, the primary backers of the bill in Georgia were existing limo companies. I would be surprised if similar groups are not the reasons for the problems such companies face in other states.

digitalengineer 13y ago

Same as AirBNB. If you can't beat them... lobby to ban them.

Fede_V 13y ago
I'm fine with abolishing almost all those regulations - they are a huge barrier to entry, and they serve very little public good. However, hotel rooms are highly taxed, while most AirBNB rooms are not - apartment rents are often rented at submarket prices under rent-control schemes, yet the tenants charge full fair to rent out their rooms. Right now, AirBNB and Uber are basically trying to avoid all regulations by pretending to be just middlemen, but that argument is transparently bullshit.
- bertil 13y ago
  The intermediary argument is over-used, but I doubt AirBnB is trying to fight hotel on the cost aspect: most of the time, they tend to be similarly priced. They don’t really recommend price at all. My impression was more that hotels (like taxis) abuse the market by strangling the offer, and forcing people to upgrade when they don’t care about luxury. The company was started to help political operative (the most amenable form of interns) to find a dry place to nap during conferences: that sounds like a specific, unaddressed need rather than a tax evasion scheme. > highly taxed, while most AirBNB rooms are not - apartment rents are often rented at submarket prices under rent-control schemes, Actually, the handful of people operating ‘hotel-like’ plans (short-term flat-share, really) that you refer too are always doing it from recently build, not rent controlled, purchased flats, for all sort of reasons; they all explicitly mention that operating anything significant from a rent-controlled flat will get you out in the street faster than you can list your flat. The classic case is this ‘let’s limit the number of license for safety reasons’: if you want high-grade manure, that is top-shelf bullshit. I went to San Francisco once, and I never felt so much in danger than in that cab: no seat belts, speed limits were for the wuss that he was honking at through-out, he gave multi-tasking an Olympic status; even looking at the (packed) road was too much for him. To the point we felt the need to call the company, if anything to make sure whomever would surely die in there soon would have proper insurance. Let’s say we were told in no uncertain terms that we were alive, therefore our livelihood was not supposed to be our concern. Same for rats in hotels: I don't mind an accident, but I expect action, not denial. I don’t understand how limiting the market is going to have a positive impact on service when the human touch is… lacking. I chose AirBnB because they had interesting features, as in, creative business model that make they offer relevant to XXIst century dweller: personal contact, restaurant recommendations from our host that make sense, a Wifi router that I can physically access when it needs rebooting, free access to kitchen that won’t charge me a day’s worth of wage to toast two slices of bread at night, significant rebate when staying more than a couple of days. > hotel rooms are highly taxed, while most AirBNB rooms are not As you point out: they are intermediaries, and I’m positive they wouldn’t care charging extra tax. I would put them on a list, and that list could be artificially limited, making them possible victim of a lobbying effort by hotel chains who want to keep a stronghold on a market, rather than admit it has evolved and adapt -- so I understand their reservations. But passing taxes is generally a business-neutral act, so I doubt they care that much. Once again: look and compare, they are not trying to be cheaper than hotels.
  - Fede_V 13y ago
    A few things: - There's been several reports of SF landlords kicking out tenants from rent controlled apartments to lease out rooms on AirBnB. While I am against rent control (it's a terrible system that creates a few winners and fucks over most people who cannot get such a flat) it's obvious that this is an abuse of the system - Until recently, AirBnB fought tooth and nail against paying hotel taxes. I think safety regulations are mostly overkill, and I'd get rid of most of them in a heartbeat, but while those regulations exist, you cannot simply outcompete other players that are forced to follow regulations you avoid.
    - bertil 13y ago
      > There's been several reports of SF landlords kicking out tenants from rent controlled apartments to lease out rooms on AirBnB. That’s the opposite scenario of the one describe initially. > Until recently, AirBnB fought tooth and nail against paying hotel taxes. > I think safety regulations You appear to be conflating taxes (that do nothing for the end user, if increase budget pressure on safety and service) and safety -- and ignoring the fact that what is generally actually enforced are quotas. There is no significant taxes on taxis for instance: it's in every case I’ve heard about a self-enforced tacit price for recommending someone for a licence once you quit; the actual tax exist, but is generally negligible. > while those regulations exist, you cannot simply outcompete other players that are forced to follow regulations you avoid. Actually, if your service include a reporting tool, the HUGE and unquestionably largest addition of both AirBnB and Uber, but before them eBay, you end up having to follow far stricter practice that include service, and that, unlike regulations, can adapt. Price control, quota, safety regulation, user reports… if you confuse those, you end up presenting a false dichotomy between two ways of organising a service.

iselkow 13y ago

What are the arguments in favor of this regulation? I'm sure that anti-competition lobbies from limos, cabs, etc. play a role, but is there something safety-related as well? And if so, why would 150 Lyft drivers be safer than 400 Lyft drivers?

joeblau 13y ago
The arguments in favor are that the taxi cab companies and the local governments have a deal going on. A regular cab pays taxes and fees to the government and if people stop taking regular cabs, all of a sudden a stream of revenue stops coming in. Also, cab companies are losing a lot of drivers and business to services like UberX, Lyft and Sidecar. I've been in many UberX cars in San Francisco where the driver is actually a cab driver, but just hates the way the cab business is run. The cab companies have an inferior business model and lobbying is the way they compete. Welcome to the political game.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
patio11 13y ago
I don't subscribe to it, but: Taxis negotiated their monopoly by giving us concessions for e.g. universal service (a taxi, unlike most businesses, is obligated to serve any customer regardless of whether their custom is the most profitable use of the taxi's time). This allows us to depend on taxis as an outsourced component of our public transportation infrastructure. If competition creams the really desirable fairs away from taxis, that might kill taxis. DSX has no desire to implement universal service and never will. This will adversely affect our most vulnerable citizens, like little old ladies who depend on the $3.50 fare to the local supermarket (whose custom taxi drivers hate) due to limited mobility. How can we be sure drivers at DSX have adequate insurance, safe driving records, and obey the traffic laws? DSX says that they have adequate procedures in place, but DSX has basically designed those procedures itself, and on the face of it DSX seems to operate under accept-everyone-and-weed-out-underperformers, which still means that at any given time there are dozens of commercial drivers who we know nothing about operating on the streets of our fair city. We depend on "if you screw up, you lose your medallion" to discipline taxi owners (as opposed to operators) in this city. "If you screw up, your account gets deleted and you have to move to a competing provider" doesn't apply the same level of incentive. If Disruptive Service X (DSX) will let literally anybody with a car start working for them, how can we be sure that DSX isn't a summon-a-rapist app? Cars present a higher risk of rape/kidnapping than e.g. barber salons (n.b. which we also regulate), since a) they move and b) the passenger generally doesn't have a convenient escape out of the door.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

CurtHagenlocher 13y ago

I'm genuinely curious: what is it that distinguishes these services from taxis? Why is it okay for one to be regulated but not the other -- or do proponents of these services generally think that taxis shouldn't be regulated either?

icebraining 13y ago
Regulations is not a yes or no question. Many proponents of such services are OK with certain regulations (e.g. safety), while being opposed to others (caps on number of vehicles). Others are simply opposed to all industry-specific regulations, and a few are opposed to the concept of the State as a whole ;) And yes, as far as I've read, many are opposed to caps on all taxis, not just on Uber/Lyft.
lambda 13y ago
Taxis can be flagged down on the street. All you have to go on is that it looks like a taxi, and has a medallion. If they aren't part of a regulated system with mandatory fares, medallion numbers, safety regulations, you have no idea what you'd be getting into when you flag one down without some kind of regulation. These, instead, generally count as livery services. If you are calling a specific business to be picked up, you know who you're dealing with ahead of times, and can check their rates, choose based on their reputation, etc. At least in Boston, Uber drivers are regulated, but as livery not as taxis, as you "call" them rather than hailing them directly on the street.
- CurtHagenlocher 13y ago
  Thanks, this is what I was looking for. There's a livery service in Seattle called "Seattle Town Car" and now I'm wondering what kind of regulation they face. From what I can tell, Seattle isn't quite a city like Chicago or New York where being able to flag down a cab on the street is both common and important, and I wonder to what extent that plays into the dynamic. I wasn't generally interested in attacking or defending regulation as such, but the most compelling thing I've heard in favor of regulation is that livery services don't have the same legal obligation as taxi companies to offer vehicles which can serve handicapped people.

Dirlewanger 13y ago

Fuck, I sincerely hope our generation (early-mid 20s) do not react like crusty sheltered curmudgeons in 15-30 years when they occupy these positions of power and are confronted with something they've never seen before. I'm not too hopeful though. One of the few constants in life is that while individually people may change, groups of them rarely do.

riggins 13y ago
of course existing companies are going to fight back by any means possible. You can't expect them to lay down a carpet for Uber.
rmc 13y ago
Highly likely. Remember what happened when the 1960s generation of free love and drugs got in power and legalised weed, and promoted sex? Yeah me either
- cle 13y ago
  Maybe our perception of the 1960s generation is a good example of the spotlight fallacy.
- yardie 13y ago
  You highly overestimate the influence that hippies had on the day to day of that era. Those guys are still into free love and weed. They just do it from inside the safety of their communes.
- benched 13y ago
  That's like expecting the goth subculture to result in more eyeliner in congress one day.
dclowd9901 13y ago
I think it's likely that there is a correlation between the longevity of a person, and their level of conservativeness. Wouldn't surprise me if most older people are, by nature, pretty restrictive.
13y ago

Joe8Bit 13y ago

Looking at the debates there are in local governments in the US, it's interesting to look at how Uber has been received in London. In London, we've had a setup for licensing 'mini-cabs' for almost a decade (and they've been around for far longer than that). In essence, they are all registered and regulated by a central authority, in a similar (but much less strict) way to London's famous black cabs. The difference being that mini-cabs are normal cars, that must be prebooked. In that sense Uber fit right in, they're just another (one of 100's, if not 1000's) mini-cab providers. So for us in London, Uber hasn't really been revelatory at all except in the app driven aspects of their service (which is great). There's always been a tension between liveried cabs and these 'mini-cabs' in London, and that's something that's been really interesting to see played out in different markets in the US. Especially when it's tied to the more prevalent laissez-faire attitude that the US has to market regulation.

drabiega 13y ago
That laissez-faire attitude, to the extent it exists at all, is generally only aimed at the federal and to a lesser degree state level. At the local level the voter involvement is so low that corruption and pandering to special interests are the norm.

jheriko 13y ago

it is sad to see this but thoroughly unexpected. all these useful and innovative startups are great, but they need to learn the most basic respect for the law and its spirit. this is the nth time something like this has happened in the startup community and its embarassing. we have taxi driver licenses and regulations for a reason. naivete isn't an excuse for blatantly circumventing them - even if you provide a genuinely useful service that we would all like to see grow and help redefine our futures...

jheriko 13y ago
oh wait ... that should have been 'expected'

droopyEyelids 13y ago

In Chicago all taxi drivers must obtain a Chauffeur's License before driving. The Chauffeur's license exam includes background checks, tests for common infectious diseases (tuberculosis), and a basic knowledge test of the city. Uber does background checks, but they don't test for TB and I've had three UberX drivers that didn't know where Lake Michigan was when we were two blocks away from it. Also, licensed taxi drivers have a number that you can report to 311 for safety purposes. I think Uber could have avoided a portion of this backlash if it would have taken more steps to ensure safety-parity while side-stepping the medallion limitations.

barclay 13y ago
Not to sound like the classic idealist libertarian, but isn't this how uber and lyft will be better? You ride with someone who's clueless or an asshole, rate them 1-star, the ratings compound, and unless they improve quickly they're tossed out of the driver pool. Immediate impact.
- null_ptr 13y ago
  The whole point of stricter examinations is to avoid 1-star drivers to begin with.
- lmg643 13y ago
  I think the rating is a pretty weak way to address issues like this. I'm a big fan of Uber, but the insistent ratings are really annoying. For example - I take a ride, the car is fine, the driver is a little annoying, there is traffic and but we get there. Is that a "5" star ride? a 4 star ride? a 3 star ride? To me, 3 stars is average. to Uber, 3 stars is "you're fired." doesn't make sense. Not to mention - how the heck would I know if he was vaccinated? that's just gross to contemplate. What if we rate him a 5, but then i get hospitalized with some crazy sickness later? and I thought taxis were dirty - i take it back. Maybe public health officials might know something after all.
sanctuslibre 13y ago
Do you understand that if people care about these things, they won't use Uber? Before reading your comment, I didn't know cab companies tested for TB and I never thought to care. If TB were a problem in cabs, I would care, and I would use a cab service that tested its drivers.

ameister14 13y ago

Limiting the number of drivers Uber or Lyft is allowed to have working in an area is short term thinking, likely promoted in large part by existing taxi and limo companies that want to keep their businesses going. It's nothing compared to the regulatory push the teamsters will make when automated trucks begin to take on the existing industry. That said, I think it's a good lesson for SV companies and a warning to count on and prepare for government reaction to new technologies effect on regular jobs.

sanctuslibre 13y ago

It is surprising that on a news site focused around entrepreneurial capitalism in technology, the majority of the commenters are statist by default. Have you not heard libertarian/free market arguments on this topic or have you found them unconvincing?