Cab medallion owners sue NYC, blame Uber for ruining business

The value of NYC cab "medallions" has tanked, and drivers are fleeing.

Read the whole story

 

[operagost]

Rector[/url]":1file8ix]

sryan2k1[/url]":1file8ix]Funny how a monopoly crumbles as soon as real competition shows up.

Regardless of your thoughts on Uber/Lyft/etc, the Medallion system is a government sponsored monopoly and needs to go away.

The main problem is that the supply of medallions was artificially restricted. If any taxi driver who met the required standards of safety, maintenance, background check, etc. could get a medallion for free, then it wouldn't be a problem.

And despite the problems with NY yellow taxis, it does seem very unfair to regulate Uber differently than the taxis. I don't really see any significant difference between walking outside and hailing a randomly-passing cab on the street and using the Uber app to hail a random Uber driver just before going outside.

Agreed, but once again the government (and special interests) answer to change isn't how to adapt to it, but how they can maintain the status quo. Instead of determining what the public wants, and adapting the laws and regulations to serve that need (and public safety), they look to impose the same outdated protectionist laws on Uber.

 

[operagost]

MatthewSleeman[/url]":391j0j93]

AM16[/url]":391j0j93]Wow I guess there is a lot of on the spot opinions getting thrown around.

There is no easy fix for this. Either Uber gets to play by the rules like the rest, or cabs regulations get modified to allow them to compete with Uber.

There is no silver bullet and considering how much it usually takes for cases like these to get resolved, the only ones suffering are the cab drivers and whomever uses the cabs. I have nothing against Uber, but the networking and knowledge that cab drivers have of cities pales in comparison to Uber. Not to mention that for the most part, cab drivers go through a more through hiring process than Uber, making them provably safer (In certain cities only). While Uber jumped not too long ago on the background check bandwagon, I wholeheartedly don't trust their system considering the freelance and isolated nature of it.

That's not the worst part, the worst part is that if things keep on going the way they are Uber ends up with a monopoly. At least as things stand there's oversight, there isn't on Uber

What about Uber would allow it to unfairly maintain a monopoly?

I could start a similar service overnight-- one where all the drivers must have cup sizes over C-- and put my "Boober" app on Google Play. In fact, that's a fantastic idea.

 

[Deleted member 1]

MatthewSleeman[/url]":368q1dem]

issor[/url]":368q1dem]

marsilies[/url]":368q1dem]

signal11[/url]":368q1dem]While I think Uber and its ilk are harmful in that they are for all intents public carriers that are trying to get around regulations that have been put there for a good purpose, the screwed up medallion system is what allows them to exist in the first place.

The unregulated free-for-all of Uber is not the answer, but the artificially restricted marketplace in a lot of American cities can fuck off, too.

The problem with not limiting medallions is that the drivers complain that they then can't earn enough on fares if there's too many cabs: since the rates they charge are regulated to keep them low, cab drivers survived by essentially taking a lot of fares per hour. If there's too many cabs on the road, drivers don't pick up enough fares a day to earn a living.

Wouldn't that be self-regulating though? Generally if there's no money in a profession, people don't do it, then scarcity kicks in, and a balance is struck between demand, capable workers, and the amount of income they're willing to work for.

Not for certain industries. Basically without something like this ANYONE can simply call themselves a taxi driver, and when that happens there's a glut, income falls below revenue and the market crashes. There was real fear of this in the US during the Great Depression, and the implemented system is where the comment about 'farmers being paid not to farm' in one episode of Daria comes from

Are you really trying to justify the NY medallions costs over hundreds of thousands of dollars? There are ways to regulate who can call themselves a taxi driver without it costing somebody a hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

[Deleted member 1]

operagost[/url]":23cnxai6]

MatthewSleeman[/url]":23cnxai6]

AM16[/url]":23cnxai6]Wow I guess there is a lot of on the spot opinions getting thrown around.

There is no easy fix for this. Either Uber gets to play by the rules like the rest, or cabs regulations get modified to allow them to compete with Uber.

There is no silver bullet and considering how much it usually takes for cases like these to get resolved, the only ones suffering are the cab drivers and whomever uses the cabs. I have nothing against Uber, but the networking and knowledge that cab drivers have of cities pales in comparison to Uber. Not to mention that for the most part, cab drivers go through a more through hiring process than Uber, making them provably safer (In certain cities only). While Uber jumped not too long ago on the background check bandwagon, I wholeheartedly don't trust their system considering the freelance and isolated nature of it.

That's not the worst part, the worst part is that if things keep on going the way they are Uber ends up with a monopoly. At least as things stand there's oversight, there isn't on Uber

What about Uber would allow it to unfairly maintain a monopoly?

I could start a similar service overnight-- one where all the drivers must have cup sizes over C-- and put my "Boober" app on Google Play. In fact, that's a fantastic idea.

Can I be an Angel investor in your company?

 

[tophatl]

So the government isn't going out of its way to maintain your monopoly? Boo hoo. As many have said, the medallion system was terrible and hurt everyone but the medallion owners.

I took a trip to NYC/Long Island last month and took cabs/uber everywhere. Every single cab experience was terrible - the drivers were rude, the cabs smelled like a garbage can and rode like shit, hailing a cab was always a PITA, etc. Uber was better in every feasible way: happier drivers, better cars, never had to wait long for a car, and same pricing as a cab.

 

[PhilStone]

sryan2k1[/url]":1vwv1g2s]Funny how a monopoly crumbles as soon as real competition shows up.

Regardless of your thoughts on Uber/Lyft/etc, the Medallion system is a government sponsored monopoly and needs to go away.

The medallion system in NYC is BS, but allowing just anyone to earn a living driving people around, like services like Uber are allowed to, without special testing and licensing requirements, is also BS. I have a commercial drivers license and those are typically required for such things. People working for services like Uber shouldn't be allowed to bypass that. The testing for commercial drivers licenses are far more stringent than a standard license, to account for the greater responsibility that those drivers are being entrusted with.

 

[noodz]

I live in Curitiba, Brazil. The municipality proper has a population of 1.8 millions, (3.4 millions if you include the metropolitan area). There are a total of 2250 "medallions" since 1975, and after much effort the municipality finally granted 750 new medallions last year, and is slowly issuing them starting this year. At best, this would mean one cab for every 600 people.

I won't complaint about the quality of the cabs,. They are so rare that they tend to be decent and well maintained vehicles, and their drivers tend to be polite. They are also prohibitevely expensive, and i will use them only as a last resort, especially if my destination is far.

Although Uber has arrived on some brazilian cities, there is still no sign of it coming to Curitiba. And yet the medallion owners are already lobbying to preemptively forbid anyone who does not have a medallion to transport passangers for a fee, basically denying Uber a chance to compete.

Uber might not be an example of ethics, but the market they are gaining is currently being squatted by people who are even worse.

I disagree that Uber is building itself a monopoly. If Uber does not maintain a minimum quality, it's very easy for the regular Uber user to just switch apps.

 

[leehb9]

Boo Hoo Hoo...can't fight the competition??? Then the cab companies had better get their shit together and get online too; if ya' can't fight 'em, join 'en!

 

[sondjata]

sryan2k1[/url]":2cbw1s8c]Funny how a monopoly crumbles as soon as real competition shows up.

Regardless of your thoughts on Uber/Lyft/etc, the Medallion system is a government sponsored monopoly and needs to go away.

Fair enough, but since the government forced that on the industry, the government should have to compensate those companies that jumped through the hoops to operate in a legal manner.

 

[soulsabr]

panton41[/url]":22gqi38b]

Quixote2961[/url]":22gqi38b]And so it goes... just like Amazon killing off independent booksellers and - once it becomes the de facto monopoly - is free to raise its prices as much as it wants. Uber will kill off taxis and become a de facto monopoly - after which it will raise its "take" of each fare as much as it wants. Capitalism at work. Beautiful.

/s

Amazon IS the de facto bookseller these days (both paper and digital). Independant bookstore are pretty much killed off. Borders is dead. The writing is on the wall for Barnes and Noble. Amazon still hasn't raised their prices.

Almost like a certain digital distribution company most well known for not releasing Half-Life 3.

 

[soulsabr]

leehb9[/url]":3owcl4in]Boo Hoo Hoo...can't fight the competition??? Then the cab companies had better get their shit together and get online too; if ya' can't fight 'em, join 'en!

To be fair it is hard to compete when you have the government chained to your ankle. But I've no sympathy. The tool they used to fend off competition is now the thing that will kill them.

 

[IIci]

People forget that a taxi market isn't a neat self contained world, an increase in taxis affects other kinds of traffics no matter what the taxi demand is. Bloomberg wanted to get surge pricing model implemented in Manhattan (like London) to decrease rush hour traffic and push people towards public transit. The state didn't let him. A surge pricing levied on all traffic by the city (not talking about Uber's own surge pricing) could have been a natural way to reach a market where things are priced so that the city flows, and could have led to changes in the whole taxi medallion concept.

 

[SewerRanger]

jjankechu[/url]":ig3l70l3] Private services weren't popular enough to warrant a heavy handed regulatory system. Now they are.

But why exactly do they need a "heavy handed regulatory system"? It seems to me that Uber and Lyft do a pretty decent job of regulating themselves without any heavy handed government system in place. You may disagree with how they classify thier drivers, but that doesn't require a regulatory system to be put in place.

 

[jjankechu]

Rommel102[/url]":vm8ici8q]

jjankechu[/url]":vm8ici8q]

elizibar[/url]":vm8ici8q]Given that when I'm in the Bronx I can never seem t get a cab to pick me up, and I've had drivers in Manhattan illegal drive off when I've told them where I wanted to go, I can't say I feel any sympathy.

That's why we outer boro denizens have our secret car service number on speed dial.

Anyway if you look at uber pickups they are only slightly better than cabs at picking up outside of city center (I.e. Manhattan)

This is either a lie or you had a bad experience and need to go try again. Uber has TRANSFORMED the outer-borough taxi/cab world. Before, you either had to call up a shitty car service that charged an exorbinant flat rate to anywhere you wanted to go and took a half hour to get you, or jump in front of a yellow cab that happened to be rushing back to Manhattan and hope he didn't hit you (the yellow ones don't stop!). NYC finally added green "boro" cabs that could only pickup outside of Manhattan in 2011, the same year Uber launched, but they were still very hard to get hold of and picky about where they would take you (although they have improved since then).

Contrast that to Uber, who regularly could pick you up in just a few minutes and would (and must) take you anywhere you want to go, whether that's Manhattan or the Hamptons. If an Uber driver cancels a ride more than 1 or 2 times they will simply be kicked off the system. Now whether I'm in Bay Ridge or Williamsburg I know that I can get an Uber within 2 or 3 minutes and have an extremely pleasant experience.

Sure, I'm lying. Or maybe you should try again and get the number to a good car service? Look, uber is fine and good but it's impact on outerboro pickups is overstated. Outer boro residents are generally much more price sensitive and crucially have already established transportation networks to get them where they need to go. Dollar vans and the west NY "buses" exist for a reason. And it really isn't that hard to get a cab in williamsburg. I'm sure Bay Ridge is harder but these are the realities of density and wealth. Drivers will go where there are more fares, and if they can't support it in volume they'll support it with pricing. Something something market forces, right? Uber is going to do better in less dense neighborhoods right now because they've got lower overhead costs. That's the upside to hiring "independent contractors". Just wait til they become entrenched. You're going to love their pricing model then.

Anyway, anecdotes, right?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ub ... taxis-are/

 

[blink tag]

MisterGrumps[/url]":3izk5t7l]This also might be the first case where a company sues the government for not protecting their monopoly.

Very definitely not.

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge was decided in 1837

 

[bglick4]

Rector[/url]":3hauhnbb]

NetworkElf[/url]":3hauhnbb]Does Uber fall under the definition of a taxi service anywhere in the US? I've always considered it to be a private car service.

Does anyone rational believe that there's a difference between using an app to schedule a ride and calling a phone number to accomplish the same task?

What's the difference between waving your arm and pushing a button on a smartphone screen? If both result in a car stopping to pick you up how is one fundamentally different than the other?

But there is a difference. If I wave my hand and a car stops, the medallion is my only assurance that this guy isn't a criminal. With the app, I have Uber's assurance that the button I click will result in the appearance of a reputable driver and the driver has assurance that I can pay my fare.

 

[jjankechu]

tophatl[/url]":225stlqe]So the government isn't going out of its way to maintain your monopoly? Boo hoo. As many have said, the medallion system was terrible and hurt everyone but the medallion owners.

I took a trip to NYC/Long Island last month and took cabs/uber everywhere. Every single cab experience was terrible - the drivers were rude, the cabs smelled like a garbage can and rode like shit, hailing a cab was always a PITA, etc. Uber was better in every feasible way: happier drivers, better cars, never had to wait long for a car, and same pricing as a cab.

The hell? I've been taking cabs in nyc for over 15 years and I've never had such a run of terrible luck. And this isn't pointed at you but everyone worried about poor routes and price gouging - shit, you used a smartphone to hail uber did you not? i haven't been worried about that in quite some time, even in foreign cities.

I'll say this about my Uber/Lyft experiences so far - the drivers tend to be younger and whiter. It actually feels like a throwback to the days when you were expected by social convention to banter with the taxi driver. So, cool, I guess.

 

[disarmyouwitha]

Naw.. They aren't mad that they are being regulated; Regulation was the only reason these filthy pigs were able to make so much money in the first place.

It's not (many) actual drivers suing.. it's the companies holding their medallions for ransom. I'm glad your racketeering scam is coming to an end.. Good Riddance.

 

[Pysgard]

blink tag[/url]":c2mfx4hk]

MisterGrumps[/url]":c2mfx4hk]This also might be the first case where a company sues the government for not protecting their monopoly.

Very definitely not.

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge was decided in 1837

The pertinent idea is that the company is suing for the state selling the monopoly then not maintaining it. They bought in under a regulatory regime at a high value to have the state change the value after they bought in.

I'm not making value judgements, just saying that if you buy a thing, even from gov, don't you have some expectation of value thats fair to expect?

 

[fryhole]

Yawn.. One more incumbant 100 year old industry crying about a shift to modern times that can't change along with it. Boo Hoo poor cab companies can't comtinue to gouge their customers or their drivers anymore.

It must suck to be these hardship companies across the many industries that need to maintain their old antiquated business models and somehow can't manage to compete. Mayeb we could start a Kickstarter campaign to "Save the (dinosaur) Corporations".

 

[Romberry]

xWidget[/url]":qgzq67zz]

to regulate medallion taxicabs, which can only charge a regulated metered fare

Is this a maximum fare, or an exact fare? They could always lower prices to compete, what with this finally being more of a free market and all.

Taxis are regulated and carry the costs of that regulatory burdern. Uber does not carry those costs. Uber is just one more example of "it involves computers which means its high tech which mean that the rules don't apply to us." This isn't about a free market, it's about effectively anarchist (no rules!) markets.

 

[bobthe]

marsilies[/url]":3bt16bvn]

xWidget[/url]":3bt16bvn]

to regulate medallion taxicabs, which can only charge a regulated metered fare

Is this a maximum fare, or an exact fare? They could always lower prices to compete, what with this finally being more of a free market and all.

It's an exact fare, from what I can tell. They don't have the leeway to go cheaper:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/p ... ter_58.pdf

I think the reasoning is for consistency of service: You know exactly what your fare is going to be no matter what cab you happen to hail.

And actually, going cheaper isn't the problem; Uber is often more expensive, especially during "surge pricing". But Uber drivers don't have to pay the same regulatory fees, don't need a medallion and thus don't have to lease one or take out a loan to buy one, etc.

The bolded part...I have never had an Uber ride outside surge pricing that was over half of what a taxi would have cost for the same ride. Surge pricing is a different story but I've rarely encountered it (and it lasted like 3 minutes and then went away so I still was able to get a non-surge ride).

 

[caldepen]

A Greek tragedy. The shield that protected them now drags them to the bottom of the sea.

 

[Statistical]

blink tag[/url]":2yirvete]

MisterGrumps[/url]":2yirvete]This also might be the first case where a company sues the government for not protecting their monopoly.

Very definitely not.

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge was decided in 1837

The pertinent idea is that the company is suing for the state selling the monopoly then not maintaining it. They bought in under a regulatory regime at a high value to have the state change the value after they bought in.

The state didn't change anything. What is so hard to understand that PRIVATE CAR SERVICES EXISTED PRIOR TO UBER. Taxis have a monopoly on picking up a hailing passenger. Period. They did prior to Uber, they do now, and baring some legislative change (which won't happen) they will in the future.

If in NYC as an individual or Uber driver you pick up a hailing passenger you will eventually get caught, charged and fined.

However more and more consumers are choosing to .... <drumroll> not hail a cab. Taxi medallion owners still have an absolute airtight regulation enforced monopoly on taxi service. That hasn't changed. It is just that more and more consumers could give to shits about that crappy service as they have found a superior alternative.

It would be like if the govt sold a monopoly license on operating a newspaper and today you still had such a license but people just didn't want a newspaper. It wasn't the govt suddenly allowed more newspapers in contrary to the monopoly license it was that people decided to get their news by other forms. You still have a monopoly license to produce and distribute newspapers it just isn't worth as much.

 

[Statistical]

xWidget[/url]":309nqx9f]

to regulate medallion taxicabs, which can only charge a regulated metered fare

Is this a maximum fare, or an exact fare? They could always lower prices to compete, what with this finally being more of a free market and all.

Taxis are regulated and carry the costs of that regulatory burdern. Uber does not carry those costs. Uber is just one more example of "it involves computers which means its high tech which mean that the rules don't apply to us." This isn't about a free market, it's about effectively anarchist (no rules!) markets.

Uber is a private car service. It operates under the same rules as any other private car service in New York City. Yes that involves special plates, commercial insurance, permits, TLC (taxi & limousine commission) license, and regulations. Technology has simply made private car service a superior choice to hailing a taxi.

http://www.driveubernyc.com/tlc/

 

[jjankechu]

Statistical[/url]":2ozgv7bv]

blink tag[/url]":2ozgv7bv]

MisterGrumps[/url]":2ozgv7bv]This also might be the first case where a company sues the government for not protecting their monopoly.

Very definitely not.

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge was decided in 1837

The pertinent idea is that the company is suing for the state selling the monopoly then not maintaining it. They bought in under a regulatory regime at a high value to have the state change the value after they bought in.

The state didn't change anything. What is so hard to understand that PRIVATE CAR SERVICES EXISTED PRIOR TO UBER. Taxis have a monopoly on picking up a hailing passenger. Period. They did prior to Uber, they do now, and baring some legislative change (which won't happen) they will in the future.

If in NYC as an individual or Uber driver you pick up a hailing passenger you will eventually get caught, charged and fined.

However more and more consumers are choosing to .... <drumroll> not hail a cab. Taxi medallion owners still have an absolute airtight regulation enforced monopoly on taxi service. That hasn't changed. It is just that more and more consumers could give to shits about that crappy service as they have found a superior alternative.

It would be like if the govt sold a monopoly license on operating a newspaper and today you still had such a license but people just didn't want a newspaper. It wasn't the govt suddenly allowed more newspapers in contrary to the monopoly license it was that people decided to get their news by other forms. You still have a monopoly license to produce and distribute newspapers it just isn't worth as much.

Are you saying that there has been no material change and the regulations in place before The Disruption still hold? Or are you saying that no matter the scale of Uber's operations, its impact is the same as the private car services before it? Or maybe you simply object to all regulations and want a free and unfettered market?

 

[Ratchet&amp;Skank:ThaThuggening]

qazwart[/url]":2ffxu548]

xWidget[/url]":2ffxu548]

to regulate medallion taxicabs, which can only charge a regulated metered fare

Is this a maximum fare, or an exact fare? They could always lower prices to compete, what with this finally being more of a free market and all.

The fee is set. Cabbies cannot charge any more or less.

Most Uber drivers in New York City are cab drivers. It's the owners who are suing. The owners might not only have a legal point, but a Cobstitutional point too.

Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits states from passing a Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. This can include changes in regulations that cause a license granted by the state to lose its value. This would include the taxi medalians. By allowing Uber to seize business without requiring a medalian, the city has in a certain sense, passed a law that impares the contract I had to purchase the medalian.

Required reading before you can respond intelligently: http://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you

The issue with that is you cannot enforce something that is illegal. Monopolies are illegal in the United States and that is what the medallion system is. So these people are mad that their government sanctioned monopoly is going down the drain. They made this bed and now they have to deal with it. Tough luck, dry it up.

 

[manhattanabe]

xWidget[/url]":30tk64ht]

to regulate medallion taxicabs, which can only charge a regulated metered fare

Is this a maximum fare, or an exact fare? They could always lower prices to compete, what with this finally being more of a free market and all.

Actually, they would like to raise fairs. Like Uber's congestion pricing. They believe that by raising fairs, they would make more money, and attract more drivers. You can call this compete on service.

 

[manhattanabe]

PhilStone[/url]":32y42vly]

sryan2k1[/url]":32y42vly]Funny how a monopoly crumbles as soon as real competition shows up.

Regardless of your thoughts on Uber/Lyft/etc, the Medallion system is a government sponsored monopoly and needs to go away.

The medallion system in NYC is BS, but allowing just anyone to earn a living driving people around, like services like Uber are allowed to, without special testing and licensing requirements, is also BS. I have a commercial drivers license and those are typically required for such things. People working for services like Uber shouldn't be allowed to bypass that. The testing for commercial drivers licenses are far more stringent than a standard license, to account for the greater responsibility that those drivers are being entrusted with.

In NYC, Uber drivers need a commercial license.

 

[Zak]

elizibar[/url]":c49lmuze]Given that when I'm in the Bronx I can never seem t get a cab to pick me up, and I've had drivers in Manhattan illegal drive off when I've told them where I wanted to go, I can't say I feel any sympathy.

Right. They're bunch of assholes and you're lucky if they speak English well enough to understand where you're going. Then, they're reckless like fuck. I yelled at a driver once to stop and got of after being tossed round the rear seat for few blocks, I don't take taxis ever since then unless I have no other options. They drive like they carried sacks of potatoes in the back.

 

[Sabrel]

jjankechu[/url]":1nnkoi7w]

Statistical[/url]":1nnkoi7w]

blink tag[/url]":1nnkoi7w]

MisterGrumps[/url]":1nnkoi7w]This also might be the first case where a company sues the government for not protecting their monopoly.

Very definitely not.

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge was decided in 1837

The pertinent idea is that the company is suing for the state selling the monopoly then not maintaining it. They bought in under a regulatory regime at a high value to have the state change the value after they bought in.

The state didn't change anything. What is so hard to understand that PRIVATE CAR SERVICES EXISTED PRIOR TO UBER. Taxis have a monopoly on picking up a hailing passenger. Period. They did prior to Uber, they do now, and baring some legislative change (which won't happen) they will in the future.

If in NYC as an individual or Uber driver you pick up a hailing passenger you will eventually get caught, charged and fined.

However more and more consumers are choosing to .... <drumroll> not hail a cab. Taxi medallion owners still have an absolute airtight regulation enforced monopoly on taxi service. That hasn't changed. It is just that more and more consumers could give to shits about that crappy service as they have found a superior alternative.

It would be like if the govt sold a monopoly license on operating a newspaper and today you still had such a license but people just didn't want a newspaper. It wasn't the govt suddenly allowed more newspapers in contrary to the monopoly license it was that people decided to get their news by other forms. You still have a monopoly license to produce and distribute newspapers it just isn't worth as much.

Are you saying that there has been no material change and the regulations in place before The Disruption still hold? Or are you saying that no matter the scale of Uber's operations, its impact is the same as the private car services before it? Or maybe you simply object to all regulations and want a free and unfettered market?

He is saying that the regulations do still hold and neither the scale or the impact of private car services matter in terms of the government's responsibility. The government continues to enforce the legislated rules that were in place when these medallions were issued. That the market conditions have changed is irrelevant in terms of government liability. NYC never guaranteed profits and is in no way obligated to insure the profit levels (or profitability at all) of the cab companies.

NYC didn't change the rules. The game changed. That is neither the city's fault, nor is it its job to try and regulate things back to the status quo. The suit is ridiculous.

 

[infected]

thyholyness[/url]":1ycui8md]What kind of moron pays $1 million dollars to drive a cab around?

Someone who wants to rent out a 24hr a day[most days] money making machine, and still have the original asset, and has $1 million to spend.

Ignoring the absolute ball ache that must be involved in running such a business... it seems like a highly profitable investment.

 

[jjankechu]

That's ridiculous on its face. It can't be that the only class allowed to be nimble and break things is the disruptive class.

If a car service starts doing taxi-like things -- like, say, deploying enough cars on the streets in order to service calls as quickly as it takes to hail a cab -- is that still OK? Now we've got what is ostensibly a car service with cars operating in a very taxi-like manner. Or rather private contractors who are not directed at all by dispatch - nope, no instructions from uber at all, just price signaling. Nothing to see here folks, it's just the market at work.

It can't be that we're arguing that the only thing that qualifies as "hailing a cab" is to physically stick your arm out, can it? Does a concierge whistling to expand his hailing range count? What if we used semaphores? Or maybe there's some other ubiquitous piece of technology that would allow us to hail a cab from close by to pick us up immediately?

 

[caldepen]

Just wait and see how pissed off they get when I send my self-driving uber car out into the city generating money for me while I work in my office!

 

[jjankechu]

caldepen[/url]":3urt4u4s]Just wait and see how pissed off they get when I send my self-driving uber car out into the city generating money for me while I work in my office!

Unless everyone else in your office has the same idea.
...

I wonder what the effect of making medallions non-transferable would be.

 

[dermott]

signal11[/url]":r42ly1kv]While I think Uber and its ilk are harmful in that they are for all intents public carriers that are trying to get around regulations that have been put there for a good purpose, the screwed up medallion system is what allows them to exist in the first place.

The unregulated free-for-all of Uber is not the answer, but the artificially restricted marketplace in a lot of American cities can fuck off, too.

So... the regulated service is bad.
But the unregulated service that droves of people apparently prefer due to cost, convenience and efficiency is also bad..?

I don't see how you can have that both ways. The anarchic, free market, anybody-can-play rules of app-drive private car service seem to be winning this fight hands-down, even in the presence of a government-dictated monopoly. Even in cities where they're illegal.

 

[Sabrel]

jjankechu[/url]"ul6cdj2]That's ridiculous on its face. It can't be that the only class allowed to be nimble and break things is the disruptive class.

If a car service starts doing taxi-like things -- like, say, deploying enough cars on the streets in order to service calls as quickly as it takes to hail a cab -- is that still OK? Now we've got what is ostensibly a car service with cars operating in a very taxi-like manner. Or rather private contractors who are not directed at all by dispatch - nope, no instructions from uber at all, just price signaling. Nothing to see here folks, it's just the market at work.

It can't be that we're arguing that the only thing that qualifies as "hailing a cab" is to physically stick your arm out, can it? Does a concierge whistling to expand his hailing range count? What if we used semaphores? Or maybe there's some other ubiquitous piece of technology that would allow us to hail a cab from close by to pick us up immediately?

You can easily flip that argument on its head and say that, if phoning a company to schedule a pickup is okay (which it is and has been for years), why isn't sending an email? Or sending a message via an app? They're different transmission methods for fundamentally the same process. At its root, the Uber model is a passenger requesting that a company arrange for one of its drivers to pick them up, which is the private car model precisely.

And perhaps that is the definitive difference between "hailing" and a private car service, the interaction with a core dispatcher rather than a direct communication w/whatever driver happens to be within distance to perceive it. If Uber was an ad-hoc system simply broadcasting to whoever was in range w/o a centralized component, I would certainly buy that as an equivalent to hailing a cab (as essentially the digital equivalent of shouting).

Note that I am not saying that the taxi regulatory model is not outdated and in need of a refinement. But the idea that the city is legally obligated to hamstring the evolution of the private car market to ensure the viability of traditional taxi companies simply because they regulate them is ludicrous on its face.

 

[jjankechu]

Sabrel[/url]":3o0v4yv3]

jjankechu[/url]":3o0v4yv3]That's ridiculous on its face. It can't be that the only class allowed to be nimble and break things is the disruptive class.

If a car service starts doing taxi-like things -- like, say, deploying enough cars on the streets in order to service calls as quickly as it takes to hail a cab -- is that still OK? Now we've got what is ostensibly a car service with cars operating in a very taxi-like manner. Or rather private contractors who are not directed at all by dispatch - nope, no instructions from uber at all, just price signaling. Nothing to see here folks, it's just the market at work.

It can't be that we're arguing that the only thing that qualifies as "hailing a cab" is to physically stick your arm out, can it? Does a concierge whistling to expand his hailing range count? What if we used semaphores? Or maybe there's some other ubiquitous piece of technology that would allow us to hail a cab from close by to pick us up immediately?

You can easily flip that argument on its head and say that, if phoning a company to schedule a pickup is okay (which it is and has been for years), why isn't sending an email? Or sending a message via an app? They're different transmission methods for fundamentally the same process. At its root, the Uber model is a passenger requesting that a company arrange for one of its drivers to pick them up, which is the private car model precisely.

And perhaps that is the definitive difference between "hailing" and a private car service, the interaction with a core dispatcher rather than a direct communication w/whatever driver happens to be within distance to perceive it. If Uber was an ad-hoc system simply broadcasting to whoever was in range w/o a centralized component, I would certainly buy that as an equivalent to hailing a cab (as essentially the digital equivalent of shouting).

Note that I am not saying that the taxi regulatory model is not outdated and in need of a refinement. But the idea that the city is legally obligated to hamstring the evolution of the private car market to ensure the viability of traditional taxi companies simply because they regulate them is ludicrous on its face.

Actually there is precisely no difference in the communication method. That the law to date has made that the demarcation line is probably because it was easy and it worked at the time. But the *functional* difference between a street hail and a private service is time to pickup. And it doesn't matter how you hail a car - time to pickup is a function of distance. So can you see why the public might have an interest in limiting the number of cars circling the streets to pick up a fare? And yes, I bet Uber has a higher utility rate but it STILL needs cars to be on the road because street parking is another scarce and valuable resource.

Uber is basically skirting these regulations on a technicality.

(And Uber would not like for you to think of them as central dispatch lest they lose their claim that all those drivers are independent contractors.)

...

Additional thought: I don't think NYC is trying to hamstring Uber. They want to slow their growth to a level that they deem manageable. In the same way that the govt is not obligated to prop up "dinosaur" business models, it has no obligation to allow unfettered growth to keep your pet unicorn's valuation sky high.

 

[caldepen]

jjankechu[/url]":26redmpz]

caldepen[/url]":26redmpz]Just wait and see how pissed off they get when I send my self-driving uber car out into the city generating money for me while I work in my office!

Unless everyone else in your office has the same idea.
...

I wonder what the effect of making medallions non-transferable would be.

True enough, but my main point is that it is kind of idiotic for all this transitional bitching and moaning about a few waves when they can't see the technami* coming. For better or worse there is a shit-storm brewing. They are fiercely protecting their nests from raptors with a meteor overhead.

Parking lot nazis, you're next!

*TM, ©, etc.

 

[jjankechu]

If self-driving cars become ubiquitous i imagine those parking lot nazis are REALLY going to have us by the short hairs. Maybe we should give up on waterfront condos and turn LIC into a giant parking lot instead.

In any case call me old fashioned but I think society has an obligation to ease the transition.