I take a bunch of ubers, by which I mean I take maybe 4 or 5 ubers a week. Before I took ubers, I didn't take cabs, I took the train. I walked five minutes to get on a tram to the train station, I switched to a train, and then I walked ten minutes home.
I never, really, took cabs. I can explain the multitude of reasons: Cab drivers with shitty attitudes, refusing to unlock the doors and just cracking open the window to ask how far it was you were planning to go: Too short? Don't want to take you, fare is too small. Too long? Don't want to take you, won't get a fare back. I mean, y'know, cab drivers are legally obliged to take you on any distance journey but the lack of accountability meant that they wouldn't. Sometimes there were no choices: Cab home or you won't get there. In those cases, I'd take cabs. The cab driver would be rubbing his eyes, swerving all over the road, tired after working a 16 hour shift, while talking on the phone to, I guess, whoever would listen. Doing anything they could not to pay attention to driving, apparently.
And now I take ubers instead. It's not because I like uber. It's not because I think that the laws around the cab drivers should be ignored and uber should be allowed to flaunt that however they like. It's because I think that, at least right now, uber works better than laws. At least right now.
Is the contractor thing a little bit on the suspicious side? Definitely. Should they pay their "driver partners" more? Definitely. Do I think that this problem is uber's fault? Most definitely not.
I don't have lyft available to me. If I did, I'd probably use lyft. I'm happy with being slightly conscientious and paying a bit more, knowing that I'm not ripping off some guy who can't do any better. Anecdotally, most of my friends think the same thing.
But what I won't do is support the existing cab industry.
My local (Denmark) taxi company has an app that is pretty much like Uber: I enter start and end address and can prepay. But, they do obey the law unlike Uber.
I suppose Uber's ease of use has inspired other companies, so it's great there was some competition. But now if Uber wants to return to Denmark, they must also obey the law.
I think in Europe we prefer to not have too much "disruption" and "lobbyism".
The big ongoing corruption case in Denmark right now is an IT company that paid for a $50,000 Dubai "research" trip with IT-bosses from the the local government (in hope of making it back for selling too-expensive IT equipment to the state)
There's a lot of people involved -- so far, a government employee has received a 4 month non-suspended prison sentence for receiving about $7,000 worth of iPhones etc.
I was going to say "Ironically, Uber has a non-trivial office in Aarhus", which is true, but turns out they have many offices all over the world which is for some reason surprising. Might be one of the larger ones though.
Yours seems like a fairly usual reply when either Airbnb or Uber are discussed - "it works for me". Great that it works for you.
I have never had a problem with the cabs where I live (and Uber is banned)
Anyway to add my anecdote as a counter to yours. I was back home in Scotland at Christmas last year. Private Cabs were all busy, so we tried an Uber wanted to charge nearly three times what the monopolistic black cabs (the ones you hail from the street) charge. My one and only experience with Uber and it didn't seem good.
Surge pricing is actually a great feature. It’s the low base bay, lack of benefits, and screwing with liability that are loathsome.
You had a choice of NO CAB or an Uber at triple rate. Didn’t want to pay? Clearly someone else did. Economics at work.
One of my early experiences with Uber was much the same, trying to get my family home from the national zoo in Washington DC in a sudden rain storm. Cabs — not available. Uber — surge pricing. Totally worth it.
That said I use Lyft exclusively now because of Uber’s moral vacuum.
Pre-Uber, cabs near me worth horrendous. I'd book a cab to go to the bar on St Patties day a week in advance, and they'd just not show; they found someone else on the way and that maximized their profit so they grabbed that fair. So 30m after I'm supposed to be inebriated; I call company, they say they sent another, and 30m later it also never shows. One of us then bite the bullet and play DD for the night (group of 5 congregated to share the cab and hitchhike back).
I think 'Cabs Suck' was pretty ubiquitous comment in many many areas of the country pre uber/lyft; it's an industry that needed to be disrupted badly.
> Cab drivers with shitty attitudes, refusing to unlock the doors and just cracking open the window to ask how far it was you were planning to go: Too short? Don't want to take you, fare is too small. Too long? Don't want to take you, won't get a fare back. I
You are citing some problems that aren't "uber vs taxi" but seem to be due to a lack of competition among taxis.
- Taxis shouldn't be allowed to reject you
- Taxis should all take cards, and preferably pre-payment
- Taxis should be bookable with apps
- Taxis should compete for service meaning a nice attitude and a nice car will be common.
So this isn't about "uber vs taxi" this is about monopoly taxi vs. non-monopoly taxi. Once the monopoly is out, Uber will just be like every other taxi company. And better still, all the taxi companies will be like Uber.
It might be that "taxi" in a lot of cities, especially US cities, are monopolies, have shitty cars, no apps, rude drivers etc. But that isn't because they are taxis, it's because they are a monopoly. Uber should be considered a taxi company, because they are taxi. But they should of course be allowed also to operate as a taxi, everywhere they want.
> So this isn't about "uber vs taxi" this is about monopoly taxi vs. non-monopoly taxi.
But that's not true. Uber doesn't fix these issues by being an "alternative", it fixes them by switching the incentives around. What this is about is "order a cab" vs. "hail a cab". By letting drivers opt into a ride, all of GP's issues disappear.
Of course you still do need competition once you're past that layer, yeah; taxi monopolies do sometimes offer cab-ordering services but those services still suck (Only available by phonecall with waiting time, no notifications, no prepayment etc). Simply removing the monopoly would not fix the issue entirely.
> Once the monopoly is out, Uber will just be like every other taxi company. And better still, all the taxi companies will be like Uber.
That is pretty much how things are here in Lithuania. The system works well, you don't really come across drivers or cars with issues, and there isn't really any kind of monopoly. There aren't many true taxis, because being a 'taxi' vs a 'private driver' means you pay more effectively just to be able to drive in bus lanes.
Historically people would phone up to book (and a car would turn up in under 10 minutes), but now you can use a single app to book and pay by card with all the different taxi companies (and get whatever car is quickest or cheapest). Uber were late to the game when they entered the market in 2015, and their launch has gone pretty much unnoticed.
What monopoly? There is no taxi monopoly that I'm aware of. If anything much of the problem with Taxis is because of the heavy competition racing to the bottom.
Same for me. I absolutely understand the criticism of Uber but saying that they are just a taxi app doesn't cut it.
To add more advantages to the list: Full price transparency, pre-agreed price so you don't need to worry that you drive in circles, no driver searching for change for several minutes until you let him keep it.
And, like McDonald's did for fastfood, it creates a world wide standard for taxi services. I had a driver in India that took me to tourist stores instead of my destination and in Mexico City they warn you about taxi drivers robbing you - all not happening in an Uber.
> pre-agreed price so you don't need to worry that you drive in circles
This isn't the case in the UK, it's always an estimate and I've had plenty of shitty drivers who don't know how to drive in London which have added 10 mins to a surge price journey because they've missed turnings, driven round in circles or taken the wrong bridge.
To add more advantages to the list: Full price transparency, pre-agreed price so you don't need to worry that you drive in circles, no driver searching for change for several minutes until you let him keep i
The local cab firm that exists only in my small home town has all these "innovations" too.
> Full price transparency, pre-agreed price so you don't need to worry that you drive in circles,
In UK you either get a taxi which uses a calibrated tamper-proof taximeter and published rates per mile, or you use a cab which must offer the option of pre-agreed fee.
I'm pretty sure similar [0], and worse [1], is also happening on Uber/Lyft, just not to the same scale yet because of taxis services being far more established around the world.
But I don't see any reason why cab drivers would be any more criminal than ridesharing drivers. Unless ridesharing services do some extra deep background checking on their drivers, which I doubt is actually happening.
>Same for me. I absolutely understand the criticism of Uber but saying that they are just a taxi app doesn't cut it.
To add more advantages to the list: Full price transparency, pre-agreed price so you don't need to worry that you drive in circles, no driver searching for change for several minutes until you let him keep it.
None of the above are impossible to have in regular cabs + app.
“Is this contractor thing a little bit on the suspicious side? Definitely. Should They pay their “driver partners” more? Definitely. Do I think that this problem is Uber’s fault? Most definitely not.”
What?
Uber is the sole party that structures the relationship with its drivers and determines the rate it would pay them. Why is it not their problem or fault? And, if it’s not their problem, whose is it?
"Uber is the sole party that structures the relationship with its drivers and determines the rate it would pay them. Why is it not their problem or fault? And, if it’s not their problem, whose is it?"
The driver is the sole party who decides each day whether or not the offer from Uber is worth it.
If drivers don't think it is worth it, they won't do it. If they do think it is worth it, why should I get in the way of their choice?
If Uber raises the rates they pay drivers, rates to customers will also rise. Economics suggests more people will be drivers at the higher rate, but fewer people will buy rides.
More supply and less demand probably won't make drivers happy, either.
And competitors can come in and undercut, as long as drivers are willing to accept the pay provided.
Essentially, when Uber raises fares it increases earnings in the short term, but not long term, because more drivers enter the system and push their earnings back down as each driver gets fewer rides.
Uber could solve this problem by limiting the number of drivers. But that of course turns some underpaid Uber drivers into unemployed ex-Uber drivers. Which doesn't sound like a desirable outcome either.
If you had the option to hire one of two people that will do the same job at the same performance level and one costs you $10 an hour and the other $20 an hour, which one do you choose? Is it the company to blame for picking the $10 an hour person?
Which is another reason why the EU would want to class uber as transport. In switching from PT to Uber you create congestion, which cities will want to regulate.
I hope that what I said didn't come across as supporting a lack of regulation. I'm pro-regulation. I'm anti-luddism, though, and sometimes it's hard to figure out where on the line I should stand.
The point is not that uber is good for ignoring regulation, the point is that the current regulations, borne from an age where things such as uber could not have existed, don't quite hold up in the age where things such as uber do exist.
If the choice for me is "behave according to inane regulation", or "break the regulations", or "update the regulations to reflect the reality of the situation" I will, in every case, like to see what's behind door number three.
Phrasing the uber-versus-taxis debate without the third option is just suffering under the yoke of bureaucracy. We can do better.
The sane way to handle congestion would be to have a congestion fee (as London does) for driving in the urban core. Make it apply to taxis as well as private cars, and the created incentives will balance uses well.
One could make the argument that regulation got regular cabs to the position they're in today, and applying that to Uber would ruin the service. A functioning system would have been more resistant to disruption. Perhaps the regulations cabs already have aren't enforceable?
You take cabs with a company who have a history of all sorts of shady dealings, a history of evading laws, evading employment rights, evading inspections, avoiding taxes, duping inspectors, not cooperating with police and a ton of other stuff.
But it's OK because you don't like the way other firms operate a service you think is a bit shabby.
You might want to take more of a look around at what you're supporting. Lots of stuff can work better without the laws, until it doesn't and you realise the laws were there for a reason.
I agree, but this experience can be delivered without the dodgy business model.
Hailo did this, all within the bounds of the standard regulatory framework by joining independent drivers to customers with all of the advantages that you provide.
They never annoyed anybody.
Sadly it seems they tried and failed to take on the less regulated markets and this was their undoing.
I miss Hailo and I hope somebody comes along with a credible replacement soon. MyTaxi is just plain awful and is probably the best marketing for Uber round these parts there has ever been!
There really isn't any critical intellectual property or secret sauce that should stand in the way ... just pure graft required.
>Is the contractor thing a little bit on the suspicious side? Definitely. Should they pay their "driver partners" more? Definitely. Do I think that this problem is uber's fault? Most definitely not.
The contractors thing is a tax avoidance scheme at the sole advantage, and responsibility, of Uber.
I'm kinda the same as GP. I used to get train then tube, not I get train then Uber. For me it's about 2x as expensive but 5 minutes shorter journey without having to deal with this[1] on 4 tubes a day. This also means I avoid this[2] at least twice a month when the tube inevitably breaks down.
It doesn't avoid the misery of the train which suffers from overcrowding every day and frequent cataclysmic failures adding anything from 30 mins to hours to your commute.
If only more companies would get on board with remote working. There is literally no need for 90% of people to be in the office 5 days a week.
Uberpool was usually equivalent to Chicago public transportation personally. Some days it was roughly 20% more, but if my gf rode with me it was actually cheaper and was generally faster or aleast equivalent.
>I never, really, took cabs. I can explain the multitude of reasons: Cab drivers with shitty attitudes, refusing to unlock the doors and just cracking open the window to ask how far it was you were planning to go: Too short? Don't want to take you, fare is too small. Too long? Don't want to take you, won't get a fare back.
None of the above is a problem when ordering cabs from a cab company's app. You don't need Uber to get accountable cabs, or to not have to haul them on the street.
It works better than law mostly because of the amount of privacy both employees and customer have to sacrifice. Most things would "work better" with that trade-off.
Edit: Does this mean people can now hail an Uber without needing an account or the app?
According to this ruling, you support the taxi industry by using Uber in EU. Probably the Uber drivers will also start acting like you have described. After all, they are ordinary taxi driver now.
You know what used to happen if I got upset about a taxi driver driving irresponsibly?
I'd call up. I'd complain. They told me they'd take the feedback onboard, and they'd definitely do something.
And then, of course, they hung up and went back to doing whatever it is they did rather than providing customer service.
I can only assume this is because it wasn't worth it to them to bother, but I also know it's why there's a value proposition that supports uber, at least for my use case.
I don't know if uber drivers earn less than cab drivers, but I do know that uber drivers they tell me they earn more that their former cab jobs. I don't know if uber is a horrible company or not, but I do know that when I complain, they promise I'll never see that driver again.
I know that uber will actually show up to pick me up.
I know that the drivers are held accountable.
That's worth a lot. Worth enough to you? I don't know. Worth enough to me that I'd pay more than the going taxi rate, though.
Not always rosey with Uber drivers. My first was in San Diego a few years ago: driver had been in town 2 days, asked us for directions, and spent the entire drive asking me about sexual activities he could find on Craigslist that was illegal in his country. Presumably it could have been a fraudulent situation and he was driving for someone else, which would likely get that person removed from Uber, but still, not a great intro to the service.
Find me a private hire firm, operating across the entirety of metropolitan Melbourne (Australia), with a pickup time of under 30 minutes, with a rate that is available to someone you wouldn't describe as "independently wealthy".
I'll wait.
Of course, I've tasked you with an impossibility. You're saying I should use a service that doesn't exist. The only way that services like the one we're talking about work is by having a surfeit of vehicles available, and the only service that has that in Melbourne is uber.
You can call what I was saying a "silly stance", but you're saying that from a position of ignorance.
Perhaps, for a moment, you should consider the outside perspective.
On the other hand, if you do find the service I described, please let me know. I'd like to use it.
There’s a threshold where the service fundamentally changes.
Phoning a cab here is looking for the local cab company number, getting shitty call quality, argue with an operator where you are, wait who knows how long for a cab you don’t how it looks like, explain the driver where you’re supposed to go, do the “fucking let me pay by card” dance.
Even trying one of the national cab company’s app only reduced that shittiness by half. It can be the same drivers at the wheel, the delivered service difference is still night and day.
My understanding is that Uber and Lyft drivers earn about the same. Lyft pays more per trip, but Uber is more efficient at getting drivers a greater number of trips per hour. The end result is that they both pay about the same on a per/hour basis.
So Uber is a better cab service, than the original one. Hopefully the upcoming regulations will result in only slightly increased pricing and a more sustainable system (keeping the drivers in mind).
all the superficial issues you've described simply reinforces how similar new car hailing service are to legacy cabs.
Your argument is akin to arguing juciero is not a juice machine. it's a connected juice delivery experience that is uniquely distinguishable from the act of making juice from solids.
And how ridiculous is it that it would take half a decade to state the obvious while this company funded by tech billionaires competed on unfair terms with tens of thousands of tiny taxi companies that followed rules and acquired licenses, expensive mandatory equipment etc.
I would love for the taxi industry to be liberalised but just not for the benefit of a few Silicon Valley billionaires with complete disregard of legislation.
Albeit the taxi companies created the unfair terms. Obviously it is not necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around. HN is generally anti-lobbying to protect corporate interest, but now that Uber is big there is some regret...
> I would love for the taxi industry to be liberalised but just not for the benefit of a few Silicon Valley billionaires
>Albeit the taxi companies created the unfair terms. Obviously it is not necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around. HN is generally anti-lobbying to protect corporate interest, but now that Uber is big there is some regret...
This myth of the taxi companies lobbying to avoid competition doesn't seem based in reality. Taxis didn't seek out regulation to protect themselves. Cities began regulating fares, service areas, and the business model. Cities put rules on them for the public good. The medallion is there is to balance out the price regulations placed on taxi companies and to ensure that the rules didn't make the taxi business unprofitable.
I've never seen any indication they sought out these regulations.
Really it smells like a smear campaign to make a bunch of immigrants driving cars 12 hours a day the bad guys and to make the 60 billion dollar corporate titan the underdog.
Sorry, but as a consumer I welcome this. I will gladly pay a few bucks more or wait five minutes more for a taxi than having every industry taken over by the absentee landlord class that is the tech industry. In the case of Uber spying on their employees, having no obligations any other employer has, paying no taxes and misusing the data of their customers and drivers.
From time to time people would do well do understand that everybody is not just consumer but also a worker, or in the end you'll end up in a bad spot yourself.
One just needs to look at the fact that these businesses have customers and drivers rate each other, which is nothing but undignified and gamified surveillance. Don't give up essential freedoms for the sake of convenience.
The Netherlands tried the experiment to, from one day to another, just remove almost all requirements to operate a taxi. Basically, the only requirements were that you had to have a vehicle that passes inspection, a valid drivers license, and register with the city government that you operate a taxi.
In Amsterdam, the result was absolute chaos. Ignoring for the moment the unhappy existing taxi drivers and companies (that was complete mess, way beyond what the police were able to control), many new entrants behaved less than professional. I.e., competing aggressively for the lucrative rides, being poorly equipped to actually deliver a taxi services.
The situation got so bad, that the old taxi company that everybody hated, was now suddenly was the most reliable taxi service.
The question then becomes how you view the taxi market. Is it a market where anything goes. Where sometimes, in the middle of the night, there is just no taxi that wants to take you (home) for a price you can afford. Where taxi drivers claim that tourists agreed to pay an insane amount of money per person for a short ride from the airport to a nearby hotel.
Or do you want something that is mostly predictable. Maybe not very efficient, certainly not nice. But with reasonable expectation that if you order a taxi, one will show up and take you where you need to go?
I was in San Francisco, the birthplace of Uber, in 2009/2010. If you wanted a taxi pickup, you generally had to call two or three taxi companies and wait 30-45 minutes for a two in three chance of a taxi showing.
I don't want Uber to disappear, but they brought this ruling upon themselves. A lot of taxi regulations are stupid. However, Uber chose to ignore the reasonable ones as well with the "we aren't a taxi company excuse." If they weren't as blatant with subverting the law, I would have more sympathy towards them.
This attitude that it's terrible that some people get rich is silly at the very least -- destructive at its very worst. And in particular as to ride-sharing services. The net benefit to the consumer has been unbelievably good, and it points to a future where there are fewer personal vehicles and more vehicles for hire, which in turn will have (I think) significant benefits for traffic, city planning, etc. For example, as the number of private cars in NYC goes down, it might be possible to ban parking on more streets, thus increasing their traffic carrying capacity and alleviating traffic problems.
But no, some people got rich doing this. And monopolists got hurt (we're really going to feel sorry for them?!). What a crock. Imagine missing out on all this dynamism and sticking to a measly 13,000 taxis in Manhattan (none in the boroughs, not really) because those millionaires who own taxi fleets and multi-million dollar medallions might suffer while some people in SV make billions. The story is the same around the world.
No, I won't feel sorry for the taxi medallion owners, nor the banks that lent to them that lost money when medallion prices crashed.
> Obviously it is not necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around.
It is when that's the law..
The fact that these people have been able to profit with high visibility and applause when basically the source of their advantage is breaking the law is mind boggling.
Are taxi regulations ridiculous? yes. But that doesn't mean that rampant illegal behaviour is the answer.
I agree. But this is the new form of economic imperialism--nobody suspects a bunch of nerdy billionaires under 40 with multi-national employee pool linked to target countries elite educational institutions...good luck telling your best and the brightest why they shouldn't take that 7 digit salary from Americans, especially when no other domestic enterprises exists or willing to absorb that many new graduates.
For consumers, Lyft/Uber/etc = best things to happen in years in transportation.
Private car experience at the price of a subway ticket is great, while making car ownership optional in places with lousy public transit. Surprised you care more about people following the rules than enjoying the benefits of VC-subsidized rides :)
That legislation isn't going to change itself. It needs to be challenged. Kudos (from me), and money (from willing consumers, including me), go to the companies that challenge it. I see no problem with this whatsoever.
At least in many places in Europe (but I think it's also the case in some cities in the USA) you need to get a taxi license to operate which is pretty anti-competitive. I agree with the parent that I would prefer if we had some stringent regulation for taxi businesses but the license system would be phased out to open the market to competition.
Unfortunately taxi drivers can resell their licenses, and they're pretty damn expensive (in the hundreds of thousands of euros in Paris IIRC) so the license owners obviously very staunchly defending their investments and taxi companies their de-facto monopolies. Besides taxis can basically shut down all traffic in the capital (and they're not particularly civil about it either) when they go on strike so the status quo endures.
Calling Uber a tax firm is akin to calling personal workout equipment a gym. Or calling a bed and breakfast a hotel. Don't get me wrong Uber should pay its fair share of taxes/fees, but bunching apples and oranges together for the sake of policy simplicity comes off as non-progressive in my view.
Do Bed and Breakfasts usually operate under contracts with larger corporate entities that set service standards and reap a share of the profits? I'd assume most are small, family run businesses.
> Calling Uber a tax firm is akin to calling personal workout equipment a gym.
You got that exactly right. If I let people pay to use my personal workout equipment, then I'm operating a gym. Uber let's people pay to be driven around and is thus called a taxi service.
This is good to hear. A few weeks ago we saw the recording breaking loss, showing Uber is really undercutting everyone and operating way under costs (while slashing drivers pays and yada yada).
Uber is big, really big. But I don't think it's too big to fail. And I think a failure will be colossal.
Has anyone noticed Lyft prices have gone way up? Like, almost standard cab fair prices in some cities? I wonder if Lyft is banking on the fact a lot of people use them so they don't use Uber, and noticing their prices are just slightly less than a regular cab. They could put them in a place where they're profitable, and charge a more traditional rate.
In the early days I knew Uber drivers who use to be cab drivers who claimed they made a ton more money than with their cab company. I doubt that's as true anymore, but once Uber fails, I bet we'll see a huge re-emergence of Cabs -- possibly alternative ride sharing apps that will put more money in the hands of drivers (where it should be).
It's really weird being in American cities today, because the number of cabs is significantly lower and noticeable. I saw a woman with her hand up, actually hailing a cab, and thought that was so weird. You rarely see that now. I mean it's probably better that cabs are more efficient with apps, going directly from pickup to pickup instead of burning fuel driving around, but there is still something lost with not being able to raise you hand or go to a taxi stand and get a cab in a city.
My gut reaction: There's no company the size of Uber that could die more quietly. The world's reaction would be a muffled "meh".
Uber doesn't even own their most important asset, which is their drivers, and if they collapse catastrophically their drivers will simply turn off the Uber app and download one of a half dozen competitors' apps (if they don't already have it). For Uber customers, the transition will be even easier.
Maybe I'm missing something: This isn't like a car company that owns and manages factories, or like a tech company that has labs or does significant R&D, or even a bank that has lots of employees and owns other assets.
So genuine question: what do we loose if Uber vanishes tomorrow?
(Don't get me wrong, I'd be sympathetic to their employees who need to find new jobs, but my guess is that their skills are in relatively high demand.)
I think you're 100% right, and there was even natural experiment confirming this when Uber (and Lyft) left Austin temporarily. Basically the city council wanted rideshare drivers to do City background checks. There was a public referendum, and Uber/Lyft said they'd leave if it passed. Then it passed, and they left. Pretty much overnight there were 3-4 Austin-centric Uber competitors. Riders and drivers just switched apps. Colloquially, people would even still say "get an Uber" while using these other apps.
Eventually this was superceded by a Texas law, and Uber/Lyft came back, but the rideshare apocalypse that was predicted never came to be because there are very few barriers to entry in this market: build a relatively simple app, paste up some fliers or billboards advertising your new company to drivers and riders, and you're in business.
Admittedly, Austin has more ambitious app coders than most other random cities, so it might not be literally overnight like it was here, but it won't take that long for somebody to do the same in the rest of the country/world. On the other hand, those places likely won't lose Lyft at the same time like Austin did, so it may be a wash.
it could have a massive effect on tech valuations in general. so from a real economy perspective you may be right, but the stock market and VC market might start to see this as an event to re-evaluate everything.
Please stop with this "too big to fail" nonsense. This is a pretty specific term for companies which pose a systemic risk if they fail. Notably that's mostly banks or other financial institutions who could drag an entire economy down if they go down.
> In the early days I knew Uber drivers who use to be cab drivers who claimed they made a ton more money than with their cab company. I doubt that's as true anymore
As (one piece of anecdotal) evidence, I was talking with a guy that drives for both Uber and a local cab company. The cab company pays more, but he still prefers driving for Uber as he is put in far fewer sketchy situations by them.
From my Uber conversations I was able to piece together that one of the sweetest benefits was that you could be paid instantly for your work, equivalent to cash in hand rather than waiting up to a month for a payslip.
The other was that 2-3 years ago one Uber driver claimed he was grossing up to £7000 a month working 16 hours a day 7 days a week.
Unfortunately for your argument, if there is one thing to deduce from Uber's year of hell, it's that Uber's not going anywhere. I could list around 50 groundbreaking events this year, each of which in itself could have taken a relatively young company like Uber down. Instead, Uber GREW 17% in ONE quarter let alone slow down - http://www.businessinsider.com/ubers-losses-grow-in-q3-but-b...
You could attribute this growth to artificially reduced prices but that's incorrect. The price reduction comes from competition with other ride-sharing (Ola, Lyft, Grab etc) over an ever-increasing pie, not against existing taxi options. This is evident from mature markets like New York where prices are stable and yet growth is strong.
Hence, outside the realms of people wanting to protect existing taxi options + users turned off from Uber's scandals, Uber isn't too big to fail due to government or VC protections but it's simply too valuable to far too many users for it to fail. These users include:
1. For drivers that fall in the full-time category, it's significantly better than old taxi options that forced expensive medallions, fees for the privilege of working that causes them to not even break-even on days, and ultra-long shifts. It's sad to see my fellow HN'ers yearning for such a regressive and exploitative cartel-driven taxi system. For more context, read https://priceonomics.com/post/47636506327/the-tyranny-of-the... before romanticizing an old system out of spite for a large tech company.
2. For part-time drivers, it provides opportunities that simply did not exist before. Earning $x dollars an hour during idle time is such a powerful force that it can alleviate macro-level recessionary pains. See https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/business/2017-12-03....
3. For users, it's essentially a daily-used verb at this point.
It's unfortunate and sad that this value add is overshadowed by a never ending list of scandals but Uber is planning on owning up and creating positive change going forward. I wouldn't be there if it were not the case. Best I can do for now is help HN understand the value Uber provides and the company changes will slowly and surely fall into place.
I dont overly care what regulatory framework we place Uber into, I care that they dont misclassify their workers as independent contractors. The whole gig "economy" is a scam, people smarter than I have broken down the numbers about the cost of maintaining your vehicle (in uber's sake) and the tax bill due in april exceeding the pay. Not to mention theres little to no job security or benefits.
Pay Your Workers.
You should care. Uber has lobbied in my state to not be classified as a taxi (or common carrier), and their drivers are classified as independent contractors. They were able to successfully lobby for this classification by guaranteeing a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy for injury caused by their drivers.
If your injuries due to driver negligence exceed this amount (which is very possible if you are severely injured and become disabled for the rest of your life, unable to work), you have no recourse. You cannot currently go after Uber because they are not classified as a common carrier. You are screwed.
You can get vastly different analysis results depending on the assumptions you make about the marginal cost to run a vehicle - If someone is leasing a high end SUV they wouldn't otherwise need the pay is far worse than if someone is driving around in a 5 year old car they already needed. It also makes a huge difference if they are doing this as a full time job or only during peak times.
And all of these factors are in the driver's control, rather than Uber's.
Can you clarify what exactly you think is a "scam"? People are free to drop in or out of the 'gig economy' at their discretion. For things like Uber there are services available to rent cars with time frames as low as by the hour, to help drivers determine if the wages and work are what they're really looking for. At worst, they could simply chat with another driver for the service.
What's worse, Uber's interests and and "independent contractors" interests are not fully aligned. When Uber wins, there's plenty of drivers on the street and no surge pricing. When drivers win, it's surge pricing all day long. This adversarial relationship is inevitably going to produce bad results for the drivers, who are undoubtedly the weaker party.
[The] ECJ said that a service whose purpose was "to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys" must be classified as "a service in the field of transport" in EU law.
It added: "As EU law currently stands, it is for the member states to regulate the conditions under which such services are to be provided in conformity with the general rules of the treaty on the functioning of the EU."
It didn't say it was a cab firm, but it did say it's a transport service, not a "digital service". To me as a layman, that makes perfect sense. With all kinds of services being improved using digital technology, the term "digital service" can be applied to almost anything.
In countries like Morocco, Egypt, China etc EVERYONE is a taxi driver. Stick your finger up and they'll drive you a few km/miles for a few bucks.
Uber incorporated / centralised that. It's not some vague digital enabler marketplace. They know the route, micromanage both the driver and passenger, collect money based on route, unilaterally set prices. How someone can think they're not a taxi company is beyond me.
Wow. Uber single handedly made folks on ycombinator pro cab industry. The hatred I saw for the cab industry when Uber was announced or becoming successful was so strong that I am amazed at how grandly Uber fucked it up.
Practically though, Uber is still doing great and probably will be just fine even after this ruling. The traditional taxis are still bad and have never reinvented themselves.
Readit News
I never, really, took cabs. I can explain the multitude of reasons: Cab drivers with shitty attitudes, refusing to unlock the doors and just cracking open the window to ask how far it was you were planning to go: Too short? Don't want to take you, fare is too small. Too long? Don't want to take you, won't get a fare back. I mean, y'know, cab drivers are legally obliged to take you on any distance journey but the lack of accountability meant that they wouldn't. Sometimes there were no choices: Cab home or you won't get there. In those cases, I'd take cabs. The cab driver would be rubbing his eyes, swerving all over the road, tired after working a 16 hour shift, while talking on the phone to, I guess, whoever would listen. Doing anything they could not to pay attention to driving, apparently.
And now I take ubers instead. It's not because I like uber. It's not because I think that the laws around the cab drivers should be ignored and uber should be allowed to flaunt that however they like. It's because I think that, at least right now, uber works better than laws. At least right now.
Is the contractor thing a little bit on the suspicious side? Definitely. Should they pay their "driver partners" more? Definitely. Do I think that this problem is uber's fault? Most definitely not.
I don't have lyft available to me. If I did, I'd probably use lyft. I'm happy with being slightly conscientious and paying a bit more, knowing that I'm not ripping off some guy who can't do any better. Anecdotally, most of my friends think the same thing.
But what I won't do is support the existing cab industry.
I suppose Uber's ease of use has inspired other companies, so it's great there was some competition. But now if Uber wants to return to Denmark, they must also obey the law.
I think in Europe we prefer to not have too much "disruption" and "lobbyism".
The big ongoing corruption case in Denmark right now is an IT company that paid for a $50,000 Dubai "research" trip with IT-bosses from the the local government (in hope of making it back for selling too-expensive IT equipment to the state)
There's a lot of people involved -- so far, a government employee has received a 4 month non-suspended prison sentence for receiving about $7,000 worth of iPhones etc.
Rather funnily, we had a Twilio in Nottingham too many years before Twilio was founded.
The difference between EU and American startups is that there are VCs investing huge sums in US companies so they can do mass advertising.
Deleted Comment
I have never had a problem with the cabs where I live (and Uber is banned)
Anyway to add my anecdote as a counter to yours. I was back home in Scotland at Christmas last year. Private Cabs were all busy, so we tried an Uber wanted to charge nearly three times what the monopolistic black cabs (the ones you hail from the street) charge. My one and only experience with Uber and it didn't seem good.
You had a choice of NO CAB or an Uber at triple rate. Didn’t want to pay? Clearly someone else did. Economics at work.
One of my early experiences with Uber was much the same, trying to get my family home from the national zoo in Washington DC in a sudden rain storm. Cabs — not available. Uber — surge pricing. Totally worth it.
That said I use Lyft exclusively now because of Uber’s moral vacuum.
I think 'Cabs Suck' was pretty ubiquitous comment in many many areas of the country pre uber/lyft; it's an industry that needed to be disrupted badly.
You are citing some problems that aren't "uber vs taxi" but seem to be due to a lack of competition among taxis.
- Taxis shouldn't be allowed to reject you
- Taxis should all take cards, and preferably pre-payment
- Taxis should be bookable with apps
- Taxis should compete for service meaning a nice attitude and a nice car will be common.
So this isn't about "uber vs taxi" this is about monopoly taxi vs. non-monopoly taxi. Once the monopoly is out, Uber will just be like every other taxi company. And better still, all the taxi companies will be like Uber.
It might be that "taxi" in a lot of cities, especially US cities, are monopolies, have shitty cars, no apps, rude drivers etc. But that isn't because they are taxis, it's because they are a monopoly. Uber should be considered a taxi company, because they are taxi. But they should of course be allowed also to operate as a taxi, everywhere they want.
But that's not true. Uber doesn't fix these issues by being an "alternative", it fixes them by switching the incentives around. What this is about is "order a cab" vs. "hail a cab". By letting drivers opt into a ride, all of GP's issues disappear.
Of course you still do need competition once you're past that layer, yeah; taxi monopolies do sometimes offer cab-ordering services but those services still suck (Only available by phonecall with waiting time, no notifications, no prepayment etc). Simply removing the monopoly would not fix the issue entirely.
That is pretty much how things are here in Lithuania. The system works well, you don't really come across drivers or cars with issues, and there isn't really any kind of monopoly. There aren't many true taxis, because being a 'taxi' vs a 'private driver' means you pay more effectively just to be able to drive in bus lanes.
Historically people would phone up to book (and a car would turn up in under 10 minutes), but now you can use a single app to book and pay by card with all the different taxi companies (and get whatever car is quickest or cheapest). Uber were late to the game when they entered the market in 2015, and their launch has gone pretty much unnoticed.
To add more advantages to the list: Full price transparency, pre-agreed price so you don't need to worry that you drive in circles, no driver searching for change for several minutes until you let him keep it.
And, like McDonald's did for fastfood, it creates a world wide standard for taxi services. I had a driver in India that took me to tourist stores instead of my destination and in Mexico City they warn you about taxi drivers robbing you - all not happening in an Uber.
This isn't the case in the UK, it's always an estimate and I've had plenty of shitty drivers who don't know how to drive in London which have added 10 mins to a surge price journey because they've missed turnings, driven round in circles or taken the wrong bridge.
The local cab firm that exists only in my small home town has all these "innovations" too.
In UK you either get a taxi which uses a calibrated tamper-proof taximeter and published rates per mile, or you use a cab which must offer the option of pre-agreed fee.
This dual system existed decades before Uber.
I'm pretty sure similar [0], and worse [1], is also happening on Uber/Lyft, just not to the same scale yet because of taxis services being far more established around the world.
But I don't see any reason why cab drivers would be any more criminal than ridesharing drivers. Unless ridesharing services do some extra deep background checking on their drivers, which I doubt is actually happening.
[0] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/h...
[1] http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents
None of the above are impossible to have in regular cabs + app.
In fact tons of countries already have just that.
What?
Uber is the sole party that structures the relationship with its drivers and determines the rate it would pay them. Why is it not their problem or fault? And, if it’s not their problem, whose is it?
The driver is the sole party who decides each day whether or not the offer from Uber is worth it.
If drivers don't think it is worth it, they won't do it. If they do think it is worth it, why should I get in the way of their choice?
If Uber raises the rates they pay drivers, rates to customers will also rise. Economics suggests more people will be drivers at the higher rate, but fewer people will buy rides.
More supply and less demand probably won't make drivers happy, either.
And competitors can come in and undercut, as long as drivers are willing to accept the pay provided.
Essentially, when Uber raises fares it increases earnings in the short term, but not long term, because more drivers enter the system and push their earnings back down as each driver gets fewer rides.
Uber could solve this problem by limiting the number of drivers. But that of course turns some underpaid Uber drivers into unemployed ex-Uber drivers. Which doesn't sound like a desirable outcome either.
The point is not that uber is good for ignoring regulation, the point is that the current regulations, borne from an age where things such as uber could not have existed, don't quite hold up in the age where things such as uber do exist.
If the choice for me is "behave according to inane regulation", or "break the regulations", or "update the regulations to reflect the reality of the situation" I will, in every case, like to see what's behind door number three.
Phrasing the uber-versus-taxis debate without the third option is just suffering under the yoke of bureaucracy. We can do better.
You take cabs with a company who have a history of all sorts of shady dealings, a history of evading laws, evading employment rights, evading inspections, avoiding taxes, duping inspectors, not cooperating with police and a ton of other stuff.
But it's OK because you don't like the way other firms operate a service you think is a bit shabby.
You might want to take more of a look around at what you're supporting. Lots of stuff can work better without the laws, until it doesn't and you realise the laws were there for a reason.
Hailo did this, all within the bounds of the standard regulatory framework by joining independent drivers to customers with all of the advantages that you provide.
They never annoyed anybody.
Sadly it seems they tried and failed to take on the less regulated markets and this was their undoing.
I miss Hailo and I hope somebody comes along with a credible replacement soon. MyTaxi is just plain awful and is probably the best marketing for Uber round these parts there has ever been!
There really isn't any critical intellectual property or secret sauce that should stand in the way ... just pure graft required.
Hopefully this will do the trick http://www.whistletaxiapp.com/
The contractors thing is a tax avoidance scheme at the sole advantage, and responsibility, of Uber.
And then a new cab company came to town, and were sufficiently innovative in the market to convince you to stop taking the train, and take their cabs.
Maybe it depends on the country you are from.
It doesn't avoid the misery of the train which suffers from overcrowding every day and frequent cataclysmic failures adding anything from 30 mins to hours to your commute.
If only more companies would get on board with remote working. There is literally no need for 90% of people to be in the office 5 days a week.
1. https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/tube-596...
2. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/08/05/17/2B201BF40000057...
I also support public transport. I pay for a monthly pass, every month. Do I want that to be my only option? No.
None of the above is a problem when ordering cabs from a cab company's app. You don't need Uber to get accountable cabs, or to not have to haul them on the street.
(For reference, I'm in Australia.)
Edit: Does this mean people can now hail an Uber without needing an account or the app?
So I guess: Back to trams and walking?
I'd call up. I'd complain. They told me they'd take the feedback onboard, and they'd definitely do something.
And then, of course, they hung up and went back to doing whatever it is they did rather than providing customer service.
I can only assume this is because it wasn't worth it to them to bother, but I also know it's why there's a value proposition that supports uber, at least for my use case.
I don't know if uber drivers earn less than cab drivers, but I do know that uber drivers they tell me they earn more that their former cab jobs. I don't know if uber is a horrible company or not, but I do know that when I complain, they promise I'll never see that driver again.
I know that uber will actually show up to pick me up.
I know that the drivers are held accountable.
That's worth a lot. Worth enough to you? I don't know. Worth enough to me that I'd pay more than the going taxi rate, though.
Transportation service, not taxi.
When I call for taxi, they ask where I want to go, so the whole window situation never happen.
Not always rosey with Uber drivers. My first was in San Diego a few years ago: driver had been in town 2 days, asked us for directions, and spent the entire drive asking me about sexual activities he could find on Craigslist that was illegal in his country. Presumably it could have been a fraudulent situation and he was driving for someone else, which would likely get that person removed from Uber, but still, not a great intro to the service.
Bit of a silly stance and rant in my opinion.
I'll wait.
Of course, I've tasked you with an impossibility. You're saying I should use a service that doesn't exist. The only way that services like the one we're talking about work is by having a surfeit of vehicles available, and the only service that has that in Melbourne is uber.
You can call what I was saying a "silly stance", but you're saying that from a position of ignorance.
Perhaps, for a moment, you should consider the outside perspective.
On the other hand, if you do find the service I described, please let me know. I'd like to use it.
Phoning a cab here is looking for the local cab company number, getting shitty call quality, argue with an operator where you are, wait who knows how long for a cab you don’t how it looks like, explain the driver where you’re supposed to go, do the “fucking let me pay by card” dance.
Even trying one of the national cab company’s app only reduced that shittiness by half. It can be the same drivers at the wheel, the delivered service difference is still night and day.
So Uber is a better cab service, than the original one. Hopefully the upcoming regulations will result in only slightly increased pricing and a more sustainable system (keeping the drivers in mind).
Your argument is akin to arguing juciero is not a juice machine. it's a connected juice delivery experience that is uniquely distinguishable from the act of making juice from solids.
I would love for the taxi industry to be liberalised but just not for the benefit of a few Silicon Valley billionaires with complete disregard of legislation.
Albeit the taxi companies created the unfair terms. Obviously it is not necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around. HN is generally anti-lobbying to protect corporate interest, but now that Uber is big there is some regret...
> I would love for the taxi industry to be liberalised but just not for the benefit of a few Silicon Valley billionaires
And the consumer...
This myth of the taxi companies lobbying to avoid competition doesn't seem based in reality. Taxis didn't seek out regulation to protect themselves. Cities began regulating fares, service areas, and the business model. Cities put rules on them for the public good. The medallion is there is to balance out the price regulations placed on taxi companies and to ensure that the rules didn't make the taxi business unprofitable.
I've never seen any indication they sought out these regulations.
Really it smells like a smear campaign to make a bunch of immigrants driving cars 12 hours a day the bad guys and to make the 60 billion dollar corporate titan the underdog.
Sorry, but as a consumer I welcome this. I will gladly pay a few bucks more or wait five minutes more for a taxi than having every industry taken over by the absentee landlord class that is the tech industry. In the case of Uber spying on their employees, having no obligations any other employer has, paying no taxes and misusing the data of their customers and drivers.
From time to time people would do well do understand that everybody is not just consumer but also a worker, or in the end you'll end up in a bad spot yourself.
One just needs to look at the fact that these businesses have customers and drivers rate each other, which is nothing but undignified and gamified surveillance. Don't give up essential freedoms for the sake of convenience.
In Amsterdam, the result was absolute chaos. Ignoring for the moment the unhappy existing taxi drivers and companies (that was complete mess, way beyond what the police were able to control), many new entrants behaved less than professional. I.e., competing aggressively for the lucrative rides, being poorly equipped to actually deliver a taxi services.
The situation got so bad, that the old taxi company that everybody hated, was now suddenly was the most reliable taxi service.
The question then becomes how you view the taxi market. Is it a market where anything goes. Where sometimes, in the middle of the night, there is just no taxi that wants to take you (home) for a price you can afford. Where taxi drivers claim that tourists agreed to pay an insane amount of money per person for a short ride from the airport to a nearby hotel.
Or do you want something that is mostly predictable. Maybe not very efficient, certainly not nice. But with reasonable expectation that if you order a taxi, one will show up and take you where you need to go?
That doesn't happen anymore. Not after Uber.
But no, some people got rich doing this. And monopolists got hurt (we're really going to feel sorry for them?!). What a crock. Imagine missing out on all this dynamism and sticking to a measly 13,000 taxis in Manhattan (none in the boroughs, not really) because those millionaires who own taxi fleets and multi-million dollar medallions might suffer while some people in SV make billions. The story is the same around the world.
No, I won't feel sorry for the taxi medallion owners, nor the banks that lent to them that lost money when medallion prices crashed.
It is when that's the law..
The fact that these people have been able to profit with high visibility and applause when basically the source of their advantage is breaking the law is mind boggling.
Are taxi regulations ridiculous? yes. But that doesn't mean that rampant illegal behaviour is the answer.
Private car experience at the price of a subway ticket is great, while making car ownership optional in places with lousy public transit. Surprised you care more about people following the rules than enjoying the benefits of VC-subsidized rides :)
Unfortunately taxi drivers can resell their licenses, and they're pretty damn expensive (in the hundreds of thousands of euros in Paris IIRC) so the license owners obviously very staunchly defending their investments and taxi companies their de-facto monopolies. Besides taxis can basically shut down all traffic in the capital (and they're not particularly civil about it either) when they go on strike so the status quo endures.
Deleted Comment
You got that exactly right. If I let people pay to use my personal workout equipment, then I'm operating a gym. Uber let's people pay to be driven around and is thus called a taxi service.
> non-progressive
I'm not sure what you mean by progress, exactly, but policy simplicity is progress IMHO.
Uber is big, really big. But I don't think it's too big to fail. And I think a failure will be colossal.
Has anyone noticed Lyft prices have gone way up? Like, almost standard cab fair prices in some cities? I wonder if Lyft is banking on the fact a lot of people use them so they don't use Uber, and noticing their prices are just slightly less than a regular cab. They could put them in a place where they're profitable, and charge a more traditional rate.
In the early days I knew Uber drivers who use to be cab drivers who claimed they made a ton more money than with their cab company. I doubt that's as true anymore, but once Uber fails, I bet we'll see a huge re-emergence of Cabs -- possibly alternative ride sharing apps that will put more money in the hands of drivers (where it should be).
It's really weird being in American cities today, because the number of cabs is significantly lower and noticeable. I saw a woman with her hand up, actually hailing a cab, and thought that was so weird. You rarely see that now. I mean it's probably better that cabs are more efficient with apps, going directly from pickup to pickup instead of burning fuel driving around, but there is still something lost with not being able to raise you hand or go to a taxi stand and get a cab in a city.
My gut reaction: There's no company the size of Uber that could die more quietly. The world's reaction would be a muffled "meh".
Uber doesn't even own their most important asset, which is their drivers, and if they collapse catastrophically their drivers will simply turn off the Uber app and download one of a half dozen competitors' apps (if they don't already have it). For Uber customers, the transition will be even easier.
Maybe I'm missing something: This isn't like a car company that owns and manages factories, or like a tech company that has labs or does significant R&D, or even a bank that has lots of employees and owns other assets.
So genuine question: what do we loose if Uber vanishes tomorrow?
(Don't get me wrong, I'd be sympathetic to their employees who need to find new jobs, but my guess is that their skills are in relatively high demand.)
Eventually this was superceded by a Texas law, and Uber/Lyft came back, but the rideshare apocalypse that was predicted never came to be because there are very few barriers to entry in this market: build a relatively simple app, paste up some fliers or billboards advertising your new company to drivers and riders, and you're in business.
Admittedly, Austin has more ambitious app coders than most other random cities, so it might not be literally overnight like it was here, but it won't take that long for somebody to do the same in the rest of the country/world. On the other hand, those places likely won't lose Lyft at the same time like Austin did, so it may be a wash.
VC(s) will have to write off several billion dollars worth of investment. Its will be lost permanently to never return back.
There's no systemic risk in Uber failing.
As (one piece of anecdotal) evidence, I was talking with a guy that drives for both Uber and a local cab company. The cab company pays more, but he still prefers driving for Uber as he is put in far fewer sketchy situations by them.
The other was that 2-3 years ago one Uber driver claimed he was grossing up to £7000 a month working 16 hours a day 7 days a week.
Unfortunately for your argument, if there is one thing to deduce from Uber's year of hell, it's that Uber's not going anywhere. I could list around 50 groundbreaking events this year, each of which in itself could have taken a relatively young company like Uber down. Instead, Uber GREW 17% in ONE quarter let alone slow down - http://www.businessinsider.com/ubers-losses-grow-in-q3-but-b...
You could attribute this growth to artificially reduced prices but that's incorrect. The price reduction comes from competition with other ride-sharing (Ola, Lyft, Grab etc) over an ever-increasing pie, not against existing taxi options. This is evident from mature markets like New York where prices are stable and yet growth is strong.
Hence, outside the realms of people wanting to protect existing taxi options + users turned off from Uber's scandals, Uber isn't too big to fail due to government or VC protections but it's simply too valuable to far too many users for it to fail. These users include:
1. For drivers that fall in the full-time category, it's significantly better than old taxi options that forced expensive medallions, fees for the privilege of working that causes them to not even break-even on days, and ultra-long shifts. It's sad to see my fellow HN'ers yearning for such a regressive and exploitative cartel-driven taxi system. For more context, read https://priceonomics.com/post/47636506327/the-tyranny-of-the... before romanticizing an old system out of spite for a large tech company.
2. For part-time drivers, it provides opportunities that simply did not exist before. Earning $x dollars an hour during idle time is such a powerful force that it can alleviate macro-level recessionary pains. See https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/business/2017-12-03....
3. For users, it's essentially a daily-used verb at this point.
It's unfortunate and sad that this value add is overshadowed by a never ending list of scandals but Uber is planning on owning up and creating positive change going forward. I wouldn't be there if it were not the case. Best I can do for now is help HN understand the value Uber provides and the company changes will slowly and surely fall into place.
If your injuries due to driver negligence exceed this amount (which is very possible if you are severely injured and become disabled for the rest of your life, unable to work), you have no recourse. You cannot currently go after Uber because they are not classified as a common carrier. You are screwed.
And all of these factors are in the driver's control, rather than Uber's.
It added: "As EU law currently stands, it is for the member states to regulate the conditions under which such services are to be provided in conformity with the general rules of the treaty on the functioning of the EU."
It didn't say it was a cab firm, but it did say it's a transport service, not a "digital service". To me as a layman, that makes perfect sense. With all kinds of services being improved using digital technology, the term "digital service" can be applied to almost anything.
Uber incorporated / centralised that. It's not some vague digital enabler marketplace. They know the route, micromanage both the driver and passenger, collect money based on route, unilaterally set prices. How someone can think they're not a taxi company is beyond me.
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/201...
The full ruling is atm only available in spanish and french
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-434/15
Practically though, Uber is still doing great and probably will be just fine even after this ruling. The traditional taxis are still bad and have never reinvented themselves.
HN is pro Lyft but also pro cab?
I just think HN doesn't like Uber