I'm sorry, I know there's a religion of disruption going on around these parts, and I know that there's disdain for established business, and regulations that seem to keep new players out of the market, and unnecessary bureaucracy and all of these things...
But sometimes, just sometimes some of the regulations and restrictions are legitimate consumer protection mechanisms that benefit all of us, and we should think before we throw them out in the name of progress.
Agreed. There is a nuance to this that is frequently forgotten in tech circles, where the government is pure evil and unrestricted free enterprise is the definition of what is right and good.
That said, it's too bad that the two sides represent the extremes and there is no entity representing the sane middle ground. On the one hand you have an entrenched industry resistant to any form of change (and not willing to abuse politics to do this), on the other hand you have companies that laugh in the face of decades of learned consumer experience and have a history of abusing the market to push out competitors (see: Uber and the call-and-cancel-against-competitors debacle).
I'm for more taxis on roads. I'm for more technology in taxis. I'm for transparent payments and real enforcement against bad drivers (and bad passengers!). I'm also for proper licensing, proper insurance, consumer protections (e.g., being kicked out of a cab for a surge pricing fare), and trustworthy metering.
I suspect most people are in this middle ground, but no one represents us. I don't want Uber to the arbiter what goes forward, and I don't want the taxi lobby either. Both scenarios are distinctly dystopian.
Virginian here. I'm currently on business in Texas. On Friday morning, I had an Uber car pick me up at 4AM to take me to the airport. He showed up in 3 minutes, was courteous, safe, and fast.
The last time I tried to call a taxi (the night before) to get me to the airport, the driver never showed up. So I ended up walking to the train station, luggage in hand, to get to DCA.
I'll be flying in to DCA tomorrow, and I won't be able to call an Uber. I'll have to go get in a dingy, unsafe taxi with some asshole who is almost always driving while taking on the phone.
If the regulations actually worked (I felt safe in taxi cabs, the drivers weren't pieces of shit chewing khat and refusing to turn on the AC, and constantly overcharging you every chance they get by taking longer routes that any local knows are not the quickest way) then maybe I would feel good about it.
But guess what? Technology is crowdsourcing regulation now. We don't need a top down body of lazy fucks who sluggishly work their 9-3 shifts (with 2 hour lunch breaks) going around making sure taxis don't overcharge or are safe. If an Uber driver gets less than stellar feedback, they are gone. I'd call that much better than a fucking bureaucrat. The results speak for themselves. Uber is safer, cleaner, and superior to a taxicab in every way.
When I fly back to Virginia tomorrow, I'll have my wife pick me up. I'm not getting in a goddammed taxicab ever again unless I have absolutely no choice.
The issue most cities and states are running into is that the laws that protect the current cab industry are making it near impossible for more cabs to be added. There are years long waiting lines for new licenses because they give out so few. And in those cities there are long waits to get a cab.
Uber and Lyft are able to get traction because the government is being too slow to meet the demands people have within their cities/states. Regulation is good for consumer protection, but when it's preventing services to reach consumers, there is a problem. These companies are willing to go around the laws cause the government is not doing their job.
Agreed. The success of Uber and Lyft is a testament to broken regulations. The natural response in tech circles is to suggest that we hand the keys to Uber and let them drive regulation.
But Uber isn't exactly a beacon of fair business practices, and in all appearances seem anti-regulation overall, even the ones that are pro-consumer.
This is a bad position with no easy way out. Clearly the current regulations aren't working, but the only two players in the game support either near-total deregulation, or complete stagnancy. There is no actively engaged party that represents the "we should probably regulate less but not throw out the baby with the bathwater" side.
The government will respond to whoever exerts the most pressure (whether that's a vindication of democracy or an example of its failure is another discussion) - but the only two parties exerting pressure are both fairly evil in my books.
The problem of course is that everyone in the chain benefits, except the customer.
1) Government gets free (non-taxing) income from the cab drivers.
2) Government officials have to deal with a voting bloc (and potential strikes) if they don't comply.
3) Cab drivers get to limit supply, and all the advantages that brings, like for example not paying 2%-5% of the fare to the card companies, plus paying $1000 a month to the banks for having a payment terminal at all (not, of course, including the separate cell subscription the payment terminal needs) (yes I know the situation in America is slightly better, but ...)
4) Let's face facts here, regular people don't, or very rarely, use cabs because of the price of that service. So they don't have an incentive to go against this.
5) There is some limited value to the regulations : they are probably overkill, but they do keep out bad drivers. Bad as in criminals, and bad as in drunk and so on.
Bottom line : this is a problem with the democratic system itself, and specifically a point where it doesn't agree with what the tech scene wants. Tesla has effectively the same problem.
Ah yes, because anyone who doesn't jump wholeheartedly behind The Brotherhood of Uber must support the taxi lobby.
Like I said, the nuances of this topic is frequently lost when discussed in tech circles, where many people seem to view the world as binary, where companies are either benevolent in a Christ-like manner or pure unadulterated evil.
Let's drop the "with us or against us" schtick yeah? It's tiresome and childlike.
It's not about disruption so much as it is about choice.
Taxis should not be some ultra-regulated industry, and if it is, it shouldn't be near IMPOSSIBLE (read: ultra-expensive) to be part of that regulated sector.
Nowadays, it's a service as basic as being a barista or a dog walker, the dangers imposed on society by having Uber/Lyft drivers pick up willing, paying customers are microscope to naught. (State/County/City) Sanctioned Taxi drivers aren't some elite demographic for honesty and morals.
If it's an insurance thing, (reasonably) legislate it, but until then, don't stop consumers from using a service that they are clearly overwhelmingly pleased with .
"consumer protection mechanisms that benefit all of us"
If it's all about consumer protection why doesn't the Virginia DMV do something about all the sluglines throughout Virginia and DC. Sluglines are the practice of one stranger giving one or more other strangers a ride so that the car can get on the HOV.
Are those slugline cars safe? Are the drivers safe? Have they received proper training?
Maybe, maybe not. But they don't disrupt the powers that be
Here's a Virginia DMV page with a link to a slugline page:
I agree, but I don't see that being the case as often with anti-rideshare efforts as I do with anti-Airbnb efforts. Perhaps my own biases are at play. Where do you see the need for regulations and restrictions of rideshare services that benefit the consumer? In Seattle they made it sound like it was about consumer protectionism, but it ended up looking a lot more like the city protecting a business model while paying lip-service to safety.
I want to regulate on safety and general welfare, not on choice.
To expand on this point: I think that most people agree that some sort of vetting process is good (would you get into a complete stranger's car?) Uber and the like seem to have good ways of holding on to good drivers: the feedback loop is in place and seems to work. The safety problem seems to solve itself
With airbnb the problem becomes more complicated because service users can also cause problems (moreso than in most things). But by the nature of the service there are two issues:
- service providers (the subleters ) might not be around to give good feedback
- neighbors are likely not giving feedback
There's no good quality control on the people staying in the house and neighbors suffer.
If your point is going to be valid (that sometimes regulations are legitimate protections) you must come with facts. Specifically:
1. What are the protections that the regulations give?
2. Are the actually successful? At uber and lyft's scale, we should be able to see how not having these regulations fail the consumer. Are there more accidents? No seatbelts? Longer drives? Overcharging? Kidnappings/rapes/murders (this is not said in jest, I believe it is sometimes listed as a reason for needing regulation)?
But sometimes, just sometimes some of the regulations and restrictions are legitimate consumer protection mechanisms that benefit all of us, and we should think before we throw them out in the name of progress.