Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It seems people's opinion on Uber varies massively by country and taxi jurisdiction. Here in the UK, as many have already mentioned, it is not really providing any benefits over traditional companies, the company is struggling to penetrate the market, and is coming up against big legal problems. Not to mention there is generally good public transport available, and places are often close enough to walk or cycle, so the need for taxis is less than in the US to start with.

I don't like Uber for it's exploitative practices, and it isn't providing much, if any, benefit in the UK. I can see it being a different situation in the US especially, where it seems the taxi industry is terrible.

Taxis are just plain outright awful in the US. I'm not sure what the reason is, whether it's regulations or just plain incompetence, but calling for a cab in the States almost always means it will not be on time/30-45 minutes late. I once had a guy show up, wait for less than 1 minute, then run off.

Uber has terrible practices, and at time is more expensive than a traditional cab but at least they show up on time and get you where you need to get to. Most of Uber experiences have been far better than almost every cab experience I've had.

I've seen that in Europe cab companies actually have Uber-esque apps, something which I have yet to see in the US for some inexplicable reason. It boggles my mind just how bad cabs are here.

Uber may have some really terrible practices and be pretty awful, but they do provide a service that is pretty necessary far better than cabs here in the US do.

I should have addressed it when I started the topic, but I’m pretty sure Uber has a bad name in the rest of the world, but in the US I believe it’s hailed as a hero by those of us who need to call for rides often.
My wife is from South Africa and said Uber is incredibly dangerous there, but she takes an Uber here 3 times a week. So I guess it’s crappy for the rest of the world where taxis are more reliable, but in the US I haven’t found a taxi company yet that I’d like to ride with again.

I've heard that Uber is downright awful in other parts of the world that aren't the US. Really though, taxi services are also more reliable in most other parts of the world.

Herbington wrote:
What surprises me in this thread is that you all find Uber cheaper.

Uber is not cheaper in my city. Even when not on surge pricing it is more expensive than other local taxi firms (even those that offer their own apps).

In my experience that is not the case in the states - uber is anywhere from 2-3 times cheaper than calling a cab. So I think we have found the reason that in the US people love Uber and everywhere else they hate it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

In my experience that is not the case in the states - uber is anywhere from 2-3 times cheaper than calling a cab. So I think we have found the reason that in the US people love Uber and everywhere else they hate it.

Yep, and it's still an illegal business in the US, just as it is in some other areas of the world. Thing is, Uber runs afoul of all kinds of laws, from taxi/traffic laws, to labor laws, licensing laws, etc. etc. But, because they offer a "cheaper" service, Americans don't give 2 gaks about it.

Don’t taxi medallions in the US cost something outrageous like hundreds of thousands of dollars? If taxis are required to purchase these to operate, how could they hope to compete with Uber?

 Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:
Don’t taxi medallions in the US cost something outrageous like hundreds of thousands of dollars? If taxis are required to purchase these to operate, how could they hope to compete with Uber?

That’s more of a NYC thing.

 d-usa wrote:

 Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:
Don’t taxi medallions in the US cost something outrageous like hundreds of thousands of dollars? If taxis are required to purchase these to operate, how could they hope to compete with Uber?

That’s more of a NYC thing.

Ah, ok

I agree with the sentiment that part of the problem for US side taxis is overregulation. Even the crappy service is an indirect result of that, because when competition can't get started due to needing to wade through a regulation swamp there's no better alternative and little motivation for taxis to up their game. Uber provides that but notably does not have to comply with any regulation.

Not to send this on a US politics tangent, but it's worth noting that while 'overregulation' gets tossed around as an oversimplified buzz word in US politics it is very much a real issue in a lot of specific areas and that causes problems. I feel like this is a good example of what that can look like.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I agree with the sentiment that part of the problem for US side taxis is overregulation. Even the crappy service is an indirect result of that, because when competition can't get started due to needing to wade through a regulation swamp there's no better alternative and little motivation for taxis to up their game. Uber provides that but notably does not have to comply with any regulation.

Not to send this on a US politics tangent, but it's worth noting that while 'overregulation' gets tossed around as an oversimplified buzz word in US politics it is very much a real issue in a lot of specific areas and that causes problems. I feel like this is a good example of what that can look like.

I find that especially in local governance it's really easy for established players to throw up roadblocks and pay walls to prevent the rise of competitors, often through pointless and superfluous certification requirements or excessive licensing fees. Taxi Medallions I think are a classical case of a terrible means of ensuring "taxi" doesn't mean any random jagoff with a car.

 LordofHats wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I agree with the sentiment that part of the problem for US side taxis is overregulation. Even the crappy service is an indirect result of that, because when competition can't get started due to needing to wade through a regulation swamp there's no better alternative and little motivation for taxis to up their game. Uber provides that but notably does not have to comply with any regulation.

Not to send this on a US politics tangent, but it's worth noting that while 'overregulation' gets tossed around as an oversimplified buzz word in US politics it is very much a real issue in a lot of specific areas and that causes problems. I feel like this is a good example of what that can look like.

I find that especially in local governance it's really easy for established players to throw up roadblocks and pay walls to prevent the rise of competitors, often through pointless and superfluous certification requirements or excessive licensing fees. Taxi Medallions I think are a classical case of a terrible means of ensuring "taxi" doesn't mean any random jagoff with a car.

Isn't the medallion idea also a means to not just regulate what a taxi is, but also to regulate the number of taxis on the road?

 d-usa wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I agree with the sentiment that part of the problem for US side taxis is overregulation. Even the crappy service is an indirect result of that, because when competition can't get started due to needing to wade through a regulation swamp there's no better alternative and little motivation for taxis to up their game. Uber provides that but notably does not have to comply with any regulation.

Not to send this on a US politics tangent, but it's worth noting that while 'overregulation' gets tossed around as an oversimplified buzz word in US politics it is very much a real issue in a lot of specific areas and that causes problems. I feel like this is a good example of what that can look like.

I find that especially in local governance it's really easy for established players to throw up roadblocks and pay walls to prevent the rise of competitors, often through pointless and superfluous certification requirements or excessive licensing fees. Taxi Medallions I think are a classical case of a terrible means of ensuring "taxi" doesn't mean any random jagoff with a car.

Isn't the medallion idea also a means to not just regulate what a taxi is, but also to regulate the number of taxis on the road?

I believe you are right

NYC is just an interesting mess. I want to say they also have black taxis in addition to the yellow medallion taxis, but they can only drive in the outlying areas or something.

The NYPD has a couple undercover cars that are yellow taxis

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Over here the taxis are just massively over regulated, and uber managed to slip in being almost completely unregulated. There needs to be a happy middle ground, taxi licenses are just stupidly expensive and they pass that cost on to passengers making the costs stupid high. Before uber I'd be more inclined to sleep on a mate's floor or even a park bench until I sobered up enough to drive myself before paying a taxi to drive me home.

Yeah, the Australian system is uniquely awful. And everyone knew it was awful, but no-one knew how to fix it because taxi plates had been bought in good faith so they couldn't just make them worthless, but government also didn't want to spend a fortune buying them back.

When uber came along with a model to just ignore taxi regs and plate requirements, it was plainly illegal but also gave government a solution - they would just let uber operate without plates. This really screwed over the taxi companies, but now between effetively useless plates or selling plates back to government at lower rates... they're taking the money.

So in our case uber has clearly reformed the market for the better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Isn't the medallion idea also a means to not just regulate what a taxi is, but also to regulate the number of taxis on the road?

And the primary purpose of regulating the number of taxis on the road is to limit the supply, and so allow those taxis allowed on the road to charge more money.

How saturated is NYC with taxis, you always see the pictures where the roads seem to be full of them?

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Isn't the medallion idea also a means to not just regulate what a taxi is, but also to regulate the number of taxis on the road?

And the primary purpose of regulating the number of taxis on the road is to limit the supply, and so allow those taxis allowed on the road to charge more money.

I'd say this statement is... right on the money

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Isn't the medallion idea also a means to not just regulate what a taxi is, but also to regulate the number of taxis on the road?

And the primary purpose of regulating the number of taxis on the road is to limit the supply, and so allow those taxis allowed on the road to charge more money.

I'd say this statement is... right on the money

Surely congestion is also a concern in a city like New York? Such cities tend to want to limit inner-city traffic in general.

 sebster wrote:

And the primary purpose of regulating the number of taxis on the road is to limit the supply, and so allow those taxis allowed on the road to charge more money.

from a governmental standpoint, the primary purpose of regulating taxis is congestion, I truly doubt the city "planners" and city council really care about the economics of being "allowed" to charge more money so much as they are concerned with easing congestion during various times of the day

Considering that the people not riding taxis are likely to be driving their own cars...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Considering that the people not riding taxis are likely to be driving their own cars...

Or using public transport, or walking, or cycling. All of which are much more efficient than taxis and especially personal vehicles.
Big cities can do public transport really well.

 Haighus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Isn't the medallion idea also a means to not just regulate what a taxi is, but also to regulate the number of taxis on the road?

And the primary purpose of regulating the number of taxis on the road is to limit the supply, and so allow those taxis allowed on the road to charge more money.

I'd say this statement is... right on the money

Surely congestion is also a concern in a city like New York? Such cities tend to want to limit inner-city traffic in general.

I wonder if that would really be the case. Too many taxis would compete each other out of the market anyway, it would probably have a negligible effect?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
How saturated is NYC with taxis, you always see the pictures where the roads seem to be full of them?

Looking over data there are only around 15.000 taxis in NYC. That doesn't sound like a whole lot on 8.5 million people.

 Haighus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Considering that the people not riding taxis are likely to be driving their own cars...

Or using public transport, or walking, or cycling. All of which are much more efficient than taxis and especially personal vehicles.
Big cities can do public transport really well.

If they were going to be doing that then they wouldn't be riding in taxis unless the latter was a more attractive option. If there were too many taxis on the road, congestion would slow it down and make said other options more appealing, a natural balance. The argument that the goal being making it hard for businesses to get into the taxi market for the purpose of reducing congestion doesn't hold water IMO. They could have a dramatically larger impact by putting restrictions on private vehicles, which outnumber the taxis anyways.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I wonder if that would really be the case. Too many taxis would compete each other out of the market anyway, it would probably have a negligible effect?

Generally speaking, most cities have one, maybe 2 cab companies so by and large, the most "competition" you're gonna get is between the drivers themselves, and that depends greatly on the pay scheme that the particular company goes with.

I feel bad for taxi drivers who re the victims of technology outstripping their careers, but I've been ripped off by taxis enough times that my sympathy is still fairly low. Uber did a few things right as far as innovating the industry.

- The "pay-per-mile" business model is utter garbage and taxi drivers used it to get away with murder. It also literally incentivized driving slower/taking the longer route when as a driver your focus should be on expediting the trip.
- No effective feedback system meant that more often then not there was no convenient way to give feedback to a taxi company regarding a specific driver.
- No convenient way to bring the driver to you, instead you have to go out and find one yourself

All things Uber fixed/made standardized. Yeah their pricing structure is kind of whack and as someone who's driven for Uber I can say that the pay structure is equally whack, but I'd still ride an Uber or Lyft a thousand times before I ever step foot in a whack ass taxi again.

Since I only very, very rarely have to rely upon driving services, I don't even know if there is Uber in my home town.

Having said that, during my compulsory civilan service I used Taxis quite often if I had the early shift (hence no public transport yet) and if the weather was too foul to go by bike (eg, too cold/snow/rain, coming to shift with a wet/dirty uniform is semi-optimal). During that time, I never had any complaints with the Taxi drivers I had. All took the fastest route to my destination, the cars themself were quite clean and nothing about the drivers themselves was worrying or annoying. The prices are... OK, as a somewhat poor student with rather su-optimal financial decisions (hello WH40k!) I still see taking a Taxi as a luxury or if there is no other way (like that time last semester when I overslept on the day of an exam. Half an hour late, still got a good mark. Score!)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I wonder if that would really be the case. Too many taxis would compete each other out of the market anyway, it would probably have a negligible effect?

Generally speaking, most cities have one, maybe 2 cab companies so by and large, the most "competition" you're gonna get is between the drivers themselves, and that depends greatly on the pay scheme that the particular company goes with.

Exactly, there is only a finite number of people using taxis. The more taxis there are the harder its going to get to earn a liveable wage regardless if there is little competition between companies.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Isn't the medallion idea also a means to not just regulate what a taxi is, but also to regulate the number of taxis on the road?

And the primary purpose of regulating the number of taxis on the road is to limit the supply, and so allow those taxis allowed on the road to charge more money.

I'd say this statement is... right on the money

Surely congestion is also a concern in a city like New York? Such cities tend to want to limit inner-city traffic in general.

I wonder if that would really be the case. Too many taxis would compete each other out of the market anyway, it would probably have a negligible effect?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
How saturated is NYC with taxis, you always see the pictures where the roads seem to be full of them?

Looking over data there are only around 15.000 taxis in NYC. That doesn't sound like a whole lot on 8.5 million people.

Well, people will generally happily sit in traffic for the convenience of their own vehicle/a taxi rather than get there quicker by cycling for example. I know- I've done it, and we can see this is the case by cities enforcing congestions charges and other measures. People will deliberately use less space efficient methods even if it takes longer to get somewhere.

15,000 taxis may not be much compared to the population, but it is probably a lot on the roads in inner city areas. I think most cities would reach road saturation long before they would reach market saturation based on population, and people are happy to wait in a queue to avoid shouldering up against people on the tube/subway etc.

There are other disadvantages, like air pollution, and discouraging the numbers of any motor vehicle is desirable in cities because of this.

 Haighus wrote:

Well, people will generally happily sit in traffic for the convenience of their own vehicle/a taxi rather than get there quicker by cycling for example. I know- I've done it, and we can see this is the case by cities enforcing congestions charges and other measures. People will deliberately use less space efficient methods even if it takes longer to get somewhere.

15,000 taxis may not be much compared to the population, but it is probably a lot on the roads in inner city areas. I think most cities would reach road saturation long before they would reach market saturation based on population, and people are happy to wait in a queue to avoid shouldering up against people on the tube/subway etc.

There are other disadvantages, like air pollution, and discouraging the numbers of any motor vehicle is desirable in cities because of this.

Looking up DMV records there are about 2.2 million cars registered in NYC. So taxis present less than 1% of NYC vehicles. And ride sharing is already driving down the desirability of driving a taxi significantly. Market saturation is already there for those 15.000 because they are simple offering a service that is too expensive for most. Capping the number of taxis but not rideshare vehicles doesn't solve any road saturation numbers. However, there is likely more to this than pure numbers, it doesn't help at all that the cap on taxis means there are 4 times more rideshare vehicles active, which does nothing for congestion.