* VC dollars still subsidize Uber, but even as an operational whole to < 20% of the true cost of rides. On the other hand, the equivalent taxi would cost at least $12-15.

Sounds nice, but I never had a single Uber driver that was doing it as a "casual" thing, or just to cover his fuel expenses and make some money on the side. It's a fulltime job for the vast majority of Uber drivers.

NYC, Bay Area: full-timers. Mid-west, PNW: "casual" part-timers

>It's a fulltime job for the vast majority of Uber drivers.

This statement is unsupported and contrary to every driver I know. It also runs contrary to Uber's own advertising.

You misspelled taxi markets.

> with a guy returning home from work looking to make a few extra bucks,

I don't know the local regulations, however isn't it still allowed to drive them at cost? Allowing the guy returning from work to cover the fuel cost by driving others? Sure its not the latest illegal getting rich quick scheme.

My father took a traditional taxi back home from the airport (SeaTac). The driver was on his cell phone the entire time and driving erratically. When my father went to the taxi board to report his behavior they told him "You have an appointment to stand before the board and make your case. It is Wednesday at 3:00PM". I don't know if the time exact, but the point it is during the day when most people are working. My father couldn't get that time off. The body responsible for overseeing drivers wasn't willing to take his complaint if he couldn't come and give it in person during the working day. It was an absurd policy that protected dangerous drivers. It is outrageous to me that the existing framework was clearly designed to protect bad drivers like that.

With apps these days, you can give feedback right away inside the app. No need to go downtown to meet with bureaucrats. I think there is obviously a balance to strike here, but I don't think the current system has found it.

Long way around or poor route selection, made up surcharges, putting a higher amount into a payment app than was on the meter, horrible riding experience due to BO, refusing to take me somewhere because it's too close, poor driving, or poor car condition. There is no feedback loop for these drivers.

Contrast with Uber, when I have a bad ride, I complain and usually get my money back, or at least part of it. I also feel pretty confident those drivers won't be allowed on the network after a few of those.

I realize there's another side to this, which is the drivers are overly penalized by poor reviews and some riders abuse that, but this seems a natural overreaction to the current situation of zero accountability. Uber, Lyft, or something else, whoever is providing the most pleasant riding experience at the cheapest price with convenience should win. From my experience, Taxi's are at the bottom of any list today.

Interestingly, the Uber was also consistently way cheaper (think "half or less") than unlicensed local bike taxis, so I suspect that it does provide a value to the drivers too (maybe not having to stand around on a corner hoping for a customer for hours).

Meanwhile, in Germany alone, you'd need to have multiple apps depending on which city you're in with little consistency between them.

As far as I understand it, taxi.eu is an infrastructure service for dispatchers, while MyTaxi is a bit more Uber-like in that it provides a virtual dispatcher for non-affiliated (but still licensed) Taxi drivers.

In Germany: while taxis are required to have licenses, we don't have such things as taxi drivers renting their medallions for a day.

> and abide by other silly regulations

Regulations usually exist for good reasons. Let's just take the common complaints about the German ones:

- cab drivers have rigorous tests on their knowledge of the city's streets: you don't want to have drivers which are stuck on the side of the road if their GPS fails and also you don't want them spend a minute idling and typing the destination in the GPS. Furthermore, it makes for a more professional experience.

- cab drivers have to know lots of tourist info (this applies at least for Munich, Berlin and Hamburg): you don't want to have cab drivers unable to at least explain a bit about the city. Cab drivers are, airport staff aside, the first point of contact for tourists.

- cab drivers have to keep their car clean and maintained: once again: Cab drivers are, airport staff aside, the first point of contact for tourists. Which means that an unclean, falling-to-pieces cab will leave a negative impression on the city as a whole. Also, not properly maintained cabs are a safety risk.

- cab drivers from city A may drive passengers to city B, but not pick up passengers in city B. Once again, this is not just to protect taxi drivers in city B (because the meter in taxi A may have lower tariffs), but also to ensure a competent driver for passengers in city B.

Uber didn't grab much of a hold in Germany because the cabs here are not the total desaster that is found in other countries. Especially, we have the Beförderungspflicht, which means that a cab driver must transport you inside the licensed area, no matter how short or long the route, and especially discrimination on race or the 'hood where the passenger is hailing the cab is forbidden. The only reason for a cab driver to deny you transportation is if you're too drunk/drugged or armed/aggressive (both of which are a danger to the cab driver) or the destination is outside the licensed area (the cab driver still may set his/her own price for such routes, but very well deny you transportation if it's too far away).

And yet this happens to me in probably one in four rides in Berlin (which adds up to a lot of rides), and not really anywhere exotic: Tegel to Kollwitzplatz for instance.

(I agree with all your points and I use MyTaxi which I find good enough, but I think the street map knowledge of Berlin taxi drivers has radically decreased in the last ten years. No idea why.)

Obligatory BER joke: Taxi drivers think they're at BER and are a bit confused why it says TXL? ;)

The most egregious is this one:

cab drivers from city A may drive passengers to city B, but not pick up passengers in city B. Once again, this is not just to protect taxi drivers in city B (because the meter in taxi A may have lower tariffs), but also to ensure a competent driver for passengers in city B.

This is almost always a rule to protect cab drivers in city B. And it's horribly inefficient as it means the cab spends 50% of its time empty. If driving between cities is common, fares have to be much, much higher to compensate drivers for this.

Knowledge of local roads is close to ok, it ties into being a good driver. The other items on your list are nice-to-haves, but at what cost? If tourists really want all this stuff, they can take the cab at the stand outside their hotel or at the airport instead of calling an Uber. But, speaking for myself, I'd prefer to save 10-20 euro on a trip from the airport.

Disclaimer: the closest I have come to Germany is flying through the airports. So feel free to critique my lack of local knowledge.

Most of the time, that rule doesn't hit at all - the major exceptions are the Berlin and Munich airports, which are located outside of the city borders. The remainder that gets hit by this policy are fares crossing regional boundaries on the countryside where it doesn't really matter anyway if a cab goes 5km empty.

All the major cities are in one regulation zone exactly to avoid this - which has the downside that in the mega-urbs Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg and Berlin the amount of knowledge required for taxi drivers is immense, and it doesn't really help that there are often enough more than 2 streets of the same name in Berlin (mostly, an aftereffect of the DDR/BRD split and reunification).

It's just a very small group of people telling everyone else what's good for them. I have a better idea - create regulations that "protect the innocent" but at the same time allow people to opt-out from such "protection" and use whatever transportation service they fucking please (but at their own risk).

1. In this case, there's no opting out of personal protection without endangering innocents - as long as you're using public transportation infrastructure (i.e. roads), an unmaintained and/or uninsured car is a danger to others. There is public interest in ensuring such cars do not drive alongside regular traffic.

2. Such "protection" through enforcement of some minimal standards is a cost; if you remove that floor, the market will push straight down. What you intend as a voluntary opt-out mode will become involuntary, as prices adjusts to reflect the added costs of those standards. In other words, it's not just those who're willingly opting out that will be using "unprotected" services, but also those who can't afford the "protection" but need the service.

Point 2 can be also restated as: safety standards are a cost, the market will happily get rid of it (by externalizing them onto society at large) if you allow it to.

In most jurisdictions, it is illegal to drive a car without a specific level of insurance or with safety-related maintenance issues independent of whether it is being used for some commercial purpose.

For example, look at arbitration in the US.

Want a retirement account? Arbitration clause.

Bank account? Arbitration clause.

Cell phone contract? Arbitration clause.

Insurance? Arbitration clause.

Online video game account? Arbitration clause.

And most people don't realize how one sided these are until they end up on the wrong end of the legal system.

Because people are too lazy to walk away from a bad deal or simply don't want to read the contract they're about to sign is a really poor justification.

Services that are technically "rent a car with a driver" can operate like taxis, but not do on-street pickup.

Only regulations: Needs driver license, needs insurance.

By your logic we shouldn't regulate smoking or guns or a million other things we regulate, for good reason.

It's not just about stupid people. It's also about people who get deceived by marketing (i.e. all of us, in some way, at some point). It's also about the market adjusting prices so that the unsafe option will be the only option available for some people, while true costs are externalized onto society.

But the point still is, as you say, we regulate a lot of things for good reason.

Yes, but it'll work the other way around - the "safe option" will become cheaper, otherwise services that provide it will go out of business. What makes you think that "unsafe option will be the only option available for some people". Feels a bit like you're demonising the free market.

stupid people will hurt them self, one way or another. You can't protect people from their own stupidity by introducing more and more regulations. Soon, you won't be able to purchase a kitchen knife.

Now we have:

- speed limits

- car making regulations

- fuel regulations

- ...

And 99% of those rules are good for society as a whole.

Regulation isn't bad in and of itself, abuse of regulation is. Focus on the real target ;)