- Getting scammed by the typical "longer ride"
- Aggressive driving, crossing red lights, etc
- Unpleasant drivers: either passive-aggressive who won't reply to your "good morning", or permanently complaining about everything, including the current trip (too cheap!)
- Apps? Ha! They don't even have GPS, and no, they don't know "the whole city", good luck getting to a smaller street just by the address.
- Your trip goes a bit outside the city limits? Here's a surcharge for the remainder of the trip plus a fee for the trip back (even after your left the cab).
Plus one can't even point to Uber's corruption and lack of respect for law: our association of taxis and its president are no better, just smaller.
Uber's are not particularly cheaper around here, yet I'd choose it or one of their competitors over taxis any day even if they were 50% more expensive.
But if you are a person who is willing to pay 50 % more just to get the Uber experience, then it is rather likely that you are part of a minority. Which, I think, proves my point of the group that Uber mostly caters to: convenience-focused people with enough money not having to worry about (frequently?) pay for ridesharing.
Someone like you is already able to take Uber Black, so everything is fine, isn't it?
And I disagree that it's just convenience. Crossing red lights and similar behavior that I've seen make it a safety issue as well.
By the way, I'm not willing to pay more because I'm flush with cash, but because I drive it rarely enough that it wouldn't mean much at the end of the year.
Uber Black is giving you what you want: An enhanced experience over taxi while simoultaneosuly following the legal requirements.
But what you want in addition: it should be cheaper than taxi. Better overall experience, but cheaper. Makes sense, everyone wants that. But this comes with larger costs for the society (especially long-term) which frustratingly, the biggest Uber advocates always choose to ignore.
Having said that, I really do understand the frustration about the regular imperfections and inefficiencies of hailing a cab. The problem I see that the proposed answer - Uber - the very company - is in the end a very bad solution from a big picture view (even if it elevates the rider experience).
It's my experience, atypical or not.
> Uber Black is giving you what you want: An enhanced experience over taxi while simoultaneosuly following the legal requirements.
Incorrect. There's no legal difference between the two in my jurisdiction.
Maybe you're confused by Uber's names? Around here, like in other (all?) countries in Europe, UberX only uses drivers with professional licenses to drive passengers. The "free-for-all" model is UberPOP (which was never introduced in my country).
By the way, please don't tell others what they want. Obviously all other things equal I prefer to pay less, but I was very explicit in that I don't mind if they're somewhat more expensive, I'd still use it over taxis.
Having said that, while I like that Uber gave a kick in the pants in a complacent and frankly arrogant professional class, now that the market has been opened up I don't care if Uber itself sticks around.
I usually use night tram (living in northern part of Poznań is quite nice) when I drink, but when I use taxi they usually have GPS. At least for a few years.
If in fact there is "little actual need" for Uber, then nobody will use it. That's the beauty of allowing consumers the choice. It uncovers whether assumptions like this are actually true. It is like constantly running an experiment.
> That's the beauty of allowing consumers the choice. It uncovers whether assumptions like this are actually true. It is like constantly running an experiment.
From hundreds of years of running market economies in the world we already have a clear experimental result: consumers prefer cheaper goods/services to more expensive ones of equivalent quality.
If you can make your service cheaper by subsidizing it with VC money and then even more by ignoring regulation, then there's no surprise consumers will use it - even if long term, the service is unsustainable and socially destructive.
I've never had to tell an Uber driver where to go or approximately where my destination is, so it's really frustrating when I can remember a few times where I would get into a taxi and have the taxi guy be frustrated at ME, the paying customer, for not knowing what region of the city my destination was.
Of course some people take Uber. For almost any kind of service there will be customers. But that's not the point. At least not my point. My point is that the large majority of people in Europe do not need Uber for their mobility needs. And therefore, Uber should - in my point of view - not get outsize influence over transportation policy.
Because Uber is not just a startup that wants equal terms. It is a predatory (I really rarely use this word, but for Uber, I do) giant that has zero consideration for social responsibility and very deep pockets for lobbyism. Once they have a foot in the door, they'll push it wide open. Which is why cautiousness in this case is really necessary, in my eyes.
Why didn't the EU block companies like Expedia taking over the traditional travel agent business, why didn't they stop Amazon and others from selling books online and stoped hundreds of traditional bookstores from closing, why didn't they stop VoIP and chat companies from closing, etc.
I'm not a fan of Uber as a company/culture, but the value they provide to me is huge. The traditional taxi driver isn't willing to change, admit that their license/medallion is a barrier to entry designed and speculated by them. If they don't want to change others will come and provide a better service/product.
To me, Uber is a necessary evil. I will continue to use them night and day... until a better service pops-up.
And even if it was just bending or breaking some rules unfairly lobbied in by the taxi mafia, I'd cut Uber some slack. But over the years, they've shown time and again, and again, that it's not about some greater social goal (in spite of their marketing copy), it's not surgical lawbreaking to make things better. They just play dirty and don't care; hell, the management was always pretty smug about it.
The really disrupting thing here is the ability in ordering the car from the mobile phone, and the frictionless experience. This is what is making the taxi obsolete. Now that black cab drivers have realised of the threat, they want to consider all others equals, when before they where happy living with Addison Lee, et al.
PS: travel agents do need licenses to sell airplane tickets, and have bank guarantees, etc., just to gain a fee. Pass through websites which earn a fee, like the travel agents, don't.
Even though US states have laws that differ they operate using same legal system, culturally they are very similar and the majority of people speak english.
This is not the case within the European Union, for example German and Italian law uses a different legal system to Ireland. Their is no common European language and culturally their are massive differences from place to place.
I've had awful taxi experiences in many European countries (Italy, France, Belgium to name a few) in the years before Uber. Maybe I'm missing something, could you provide some examples of European countries where getting a taxi was a pleasant experience prior to Uber?
> could you provide some examples of European countries where getting a taxi was a pleasant experience prior to Uber?
Probably everywhere. The problem is still lack of consistency.
Just look at this whole thread. I never had a bad experience with taxis in Poland, pre- or post-Uber - but I have a friend who had, and he hates taxi companies because of it. 'yoodenvranx doesn't like taxis in Germany, but 'burgreblast presumably doesn't mind. 'user15672 and 'phillc73 are ok with taxis in London, but hating on London taxis is so common I don't even need to look for examples.
So taxis in Europe aren't uniformly bad or uniformly good; they seem to be a mixed bag, with a lot depending on city, company or even the driver you get. Something that definitely could be improved, but then again, people report bad rides with Uber too, and all of that doesn't free Uber from the requirement of following local laws.
Having all those different culture / legal systems with combination of EU regulation is how the market can act as one economy.
1. When you say "evolving fine in Europe," can you clarify what portions of Europe, perhaps specifically countries or cities? Or can you expressly state that you mean the entirety of Europe?
2. Can you name the personal transportation companies with cute apps that make Uber unnecessary for the regions indicated by (1) ?
2) Where I live - Kraków, Poland - we had iCar for years (they've expanded to several cities in the region now). Their app could use a facelift, true, but otherwise works fine, and in pre-app times, their phone dispatch worked well too.
I remember them first showing up when I was a teenager, 10 or so years ago. They had a conflict with regular taxi companies over their business model - a conflict which over the years got resolved in courts, and regulations were appropriately adjusted. I can point to that as an example of how to handle the issue in a civilized way.
There are also at least two companies that attempt to bridge different services in different cities under one app - Taxi.eu and myTaxi. They also work together with the regular taxi services (the evil "taxi mafias") too.
So they started operating before the regulations were changed to accommodate their model. How exactly is this different from Uber?
Regular taxi companies obviously got angry at the new competition, there was some tire slashing, and eventually courts clarified the regulations in a way that didn't turn out bad for either party, and now they peacefully coexist. Regular taxis adopted some of the new ideas, too, and the overall quality of service improved for every company.
- actually broke any local law
- pulled any shenanigans with taxes or employment laws
- allowed nor encouraged drivers to operate with improper insurance
- messed with journalists
- used investor money to subsidize rides to the point no one could compete with their prices
Their one innovation was using GPS, which allowed them to avoid the need for training drivers in city kowlege (and the legal workaround they found thus let them operate under one company-wide transportation license), and to bill by distance instead of by time. The latter was actually a huge value for consumers, because it removed the price variation caused by congestion, as well as allowed the company to state the whole price up front, which made people trust them more.
I don't see a reason why a licensed taxi company couldn't work as Uber on the outside. (Liftago does.)
I remember that as a kid, my mother and grandmother would teach me to never take a taxi that's parking in front of the train station, because those are the scammers that prey on tourists. Instead one should order a taxi from a known company using a phone.
This does not make it OK. If Uber solves this problem alone it will help lift the local economy.
I'm enough of HN comment reader to know you mean well, but I honestly don't think you are thinking this through clearly because of your personal experience. Keep in mind, I live in a small town in fly-over-country-USA, so I have no use for Uber.
I think the major innovation that's overlooked (because they haven't rolled it out in many markets) is UberPool/Lyft Line. Being able to match strangers with departures/destinations on the same route leads to significant savings for the customers and better car efficiency (one car for two trips, instead of two cars).
If you believe that taxis are getting better in Europe, see the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl2QcEOIdHg
Sorry, I couldn't find proper English captions, however the numbers are still clear.
The person who made the video, made 4 trips from the same point A to point B and these are the prices he had to pay for the same exact journey:
- 1250 HUF - 2000 HUF - 2500 HUF - 5950 HUF
None of the drivers provided a receipt willingly. Meanwhile Uber cost 1105 HUF.
Note that: taxi tariffs are regulated in Budapest, yet it clearly doesn't stop drivers from overcharging unsuspecting foreigners.
If it was able to achieve one or more of the above benefits because it broke laws, I'm curious as to the benefits of those laws and do they outweigh the benefits uber apparently provided?
As an American, I am unfamiliar with taxi regulations in Europe, but I would be hard presssed to find any benefits of the taxi regulations in US cities in which I have lived.
On the other hand, in Japan where I live now, there are very few taxi regulations (no medallion system). Unlike the US, taxis are cheap, convenient, and high quality. As a result, uber is almost non existent. My intuition is if Europe had a well functioning taxi system like Japan, uber would not have become popular.
I can imagine mild popularity in Berlin, but I (living in a smallish town near a middle-to-big city) don't think I know anybody who has ever taken an Uber.
Not because of how scummy Uber is, but because it's nearly irrelevant.
It's only notoriety and relevance stems from it's legal troubles.
Now of course the taxi lobby got it banned, but there's something called taxify instead, of course it's the homegrown version by some blessed local firm.
Can't wait to see them crash and burn and be replaced by commodity ride-share services that have a better connection to their service area.
But all the extra work getting people to drive in the spare time doesn't really add much value. It's only viable because they are dumping money in the market to subsidize it.
Uber could co-exist with taxis. In many cities you can hail a regulated cab with the app.
While the other comment is particularly snarky, and while modern day racism is less overt than activities like lynching, it still exists.
As an easy example from recent news, a Texas judge posting on facebook that it was "time for a tree and a rope" (which is an implied lynching)[0].
[0] - http://www.mystatesman.com/news/local-govt--politics/judge-m...
"Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good."
(https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h...)
They always dance this weird line between "the deep state run by the rich are destroying this country for their profit" and "people should be allowed to make money however they want, and do whatever they want with that money."
The prior sentence refers to inheritance, so it's clearly about personal property also (if not exclusively). But if someone inherits a Porsche, in what way is it supposed to serve the public good?
Also, the following sentence discusses expropriation (which appears to be what is known in the US as eminent domain). And the title of the section is "Property — Inheritance — Expropriation".
I wonder if this means this section (including the intriguing sentence you quoted) is just talking about rules for inheriting and expropriating property. That is, perhaps it's not a general rule for property to serve the public good (just that it may be called to do so in cases of expropriation).
I would be very interested to know how other people interpret this sentence and the section in which it's found.
So paragraph 1 guarantees property and inheritance. And makes both subject to limitations, set out by law (freedom of art, for example, is not limited by laws, at least not literally in the text of the constitution).
Paragraph 2 lays out one such limitation: social benefit.
Paragraph 3 lays out a means to achieve that: expropriation (exceedingly rare, I think it is sometimes used for huge infrastructure projects like Autobahnen or railroad tracks, but only after years of negotiations).
So it is indeed a general rule, not a detail to expropriation.
To your question about the limits on paragraph 2 let me just throw in a bit from the German Wikipedia, without having checked it:
* Not all property is subject to this limit to the basic right to property, but only such property that has "social relevance"
I would interpret it so that apartments and housing are clearly having social relevance, but your Porsche probably hasn't.
Furthermore:
* Those limitations to the basic right to property must be rooted in fomal law, not just regulations or jurisprudence.
What I mean is, I think history has shown that the "best" definition of property (as in, which one has the best outcomes for society) is one that's "mostly private". Full Communism clearly doesn't work very well, but an absolutely inviolate right to private property carries all kinds of problems too, so instead most countries have settled on a flexible definition where there is private property with an enumerated set of restrictions and limitations (which a hardcore Lockean can't do, because to them property is absolute). The sentence in the constitution seems like a reminder of this when it comes time for a constitutional judge to evaluate a particular law, which I think is right - a constitution can't cover every possible situation, it should be a set of guidelines for entering unfamiliar territory.
There is also Article 20, saying in part: "The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.
So the social obligation of property isn't a fluke, but more a consequence of this provision.
The "social" is really important here and it is being interpreted as a real duty of the state to achieve social welfare. And it is so central to our constitution that it is protected by the "eternity clause" in Article 79:
"Amendments to this Basic Law affecting the division of the Federation into Länder, their participation on principle in the legislative process, or the principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 shall be inadmissible."
And of course, changes like this would be likely to happen in political environments that don't care about these things.
(Teleological interpretation)
As an European? Yes.
Things were evolving fine in Europe; from our POV, Uber isn't doing anything innovative - they're just a personal transportation company (we have those) with a cute app (we have those) that tries to outcompete everyone by unilaterally deciding that laws don't apply to them.
> Taxi unions aren't going to say "oh, but Lyft doesn't have as much sexual harassment in the workplace, we'll let them slide."
I wish this would stop; I get that sexual harassment is what media loves to write about, but this was not remotely the biggest or most wrong thing Uber has done. Their whole business model is antisocial.