This is very disappointing. I hoped that the government would treat its duty to protect me from cheap car services more seriously.

I realize you are joking, but the concern really is that cab companies are something that consumers are trusting their lives with, and often in situations before they can evaluate trustworthiness or history, if not of entire companies then certainly of individual drivers. There are extensive regulations that have thereby been placed on such companies over the years related to vehicle maintenance, specialized insurance, and traffic organization. Uber believes that none of this should apply to them because they are being "disruptive" (as if that is somehow itself a benefit for which we should be optimizing as a society).

We don't miss regulation until it's gone. The apartheid government, in its dying days, decided to promote free-marketism and it deregulated the minibus taxi sector, thinking that each driver would run a one-man business. What really happened is that those with access to capital bought fleets of minibuses and South Africas cities became a nightmare by the mid-1990's with taxi-owners forming cartels which engaged in bloody wars for lucrative routes. The taxis are unsafe, and their drivers are reckless (passengers dare not complain). Government attempts at re-regulation are constantly stymied.

The taxi industry operates with impunity, and managed to get ownership of new Bus Rapid Transit systems in Johannesburg and Pretoria (they'd have shot bus drivers if they didn't get a stake).

I've been threatened personally with a weapon (a hammer, not a gun, fortunately) by a taxi driver who felt I didn't move out of his way fast enough. Not coincidentally, it was around that time that my libertarian leanings began to wane.

"engaged in bloody wars for lucrative routes" "threatened personally with a weapon"

Isn't the obvious solution to this problem the enforcement of existing laws against threats and violence?

Or conversely, if the government is so weak that it can't stop the taxi cartels from fighting bloody battles, surely it's also too weak to enforce cab licensing laws.

Yes, the fundamental problem is a weak state.

However, deregulating the industry made the problem far worse than it could have been. Our law enforcement is not entirely ineffectual, and a permit system would have provided more control than a free-for-all, by moderating supply. Buses remained more tighly controlled and I don't see bus warfare (there is an upward trend in accidents involving buses though I think that has more to do with poorly skilled drivers than profit-seeking).

I believe Uber simply sub-contracts to independent sedan drivers who have already jumped through all the necessary governmental hoops - it's not a dispatching system for gypsy cabs. The drivers I spoke to in my city (SF) said that they simply use Uber as an additional source of income.

This is certainly the case with their new "Uber X" service as well that got into trouble in DC - the only difference is that they dispatch hybrids from their partners vs. towncars / SUVs.

Private cars / limousines / independent sedans are not regulated the same way as taxi cabs under the specific assumption that they are scheduled in advance (which changes both the information and market dynamics, often involves specific drivers, and provides more opportunities for strong contracts to be in play); this is actually required by law in some jurisdictions, including DC.

> “It happens to be D.C. law," Linton reiterated about the situation with Uber. "D.C. law prescribes that limousines must enter into an advance contract with the passenger.”

http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-on-foot/2012/01/the-kojo-show-b...

Why should whether the ride is scheduled in advance matter with respect to things like maintenance? And to the extent that they matter, isn't Uber in fact more like a limousine service than a taxi?

And thank God for that. Can you imagine if cabbies drove irresponsibly?

It's worth pointing out that many commentors in the last thread on this case justified the historic price regulation of cabs by municipalities based mostly off safety issues, and often said that it was reasonable for the government to continue to so regulate even when technology disrupted the industry:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4221589

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4221844

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4221747

But the city council gets some angry emails from constituents about blocking Uber and what do they do? Remove the minimum prices requirements without any compensating changes to the safety regulations. (Presumably, Uber cabs already satisfy the safety rules for dispatched sedans.)

So, whatever you think about cab regulation in the abstract, I think this is good evidence that the mechanism for how the government actually makes regulatory decisions bares no relation to abstract arguments. The government officials are just human beings responding to their various incentives.

This is good news. What was proposed before (a price floor five times above taxis, assuredly to prevent disruption of the taxi industry) was not at all in the public's best interest.

Agreed. I don't understand preservational methodologies such as this. If the demand for taxis dies as a result of better alternatives, then let it. How else will we progress without being willing to give up our old habits?

It's not quite as simple as that -- taxis are widely used by homeless/indigent people as sometimes their only means of transportation to get to the doctor/employment/etc. These individuals may not have the correct technology or knowledge to use services like Uber.

If the taxi industry does die, cities should provide some kind of "summon-an-Uber" facility, perhaps through former payphone locations etc.

> It's not quite as simple as that -- taxis are widely used by homeless/indigent people as sometimes their only means of transportation to get to the doctor/employment/etc.

Wait, seriously? Taxis are pretty universally expensive, so it'd really surprise me if those without gainful employment were using them. Public transportation is far less costly, even if it is less convenient most of the time, so I'd figure that'd be used more in these cases.

That's assuming you live in a place with good public transportation.

A lot of people you wouldn't expect to be able to afford a taxi have to rely on them because they can't afford a car. It's one of the defining things about poverty, you end up spending more money on things than somebody better off because you can't afford the capital outlay to make it cheaper.

There are a lot of smaller cities without public transportation. Not just frustrating public transportation like San Francisco's MUNI or even complete jokes of public transportation like Los Angeles, but literally none at all.

Forgive me if i'm wrong but aren't people being actively locked out of the taxi industry in NY due to the current regulations?

I don't see how that relates to the grandparent post. I think the parent post is saying that a world in which cabs can only called by smartphone and can no longer be hailed in person would exclude some people and you are saying that some people who want to form cab companies are being prevented from do so. I imagine for the most part these are two separate sets of people.

I'd like to see a breakdown of the money flow in the traditional taxi industry. With a medallion system, how much of the cash flow goes to the medallion owner, and how much to the driver?

There was an interesting article on that recently:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/06/taxi...

"New York fares have gone up six times over the last 30 years, yet drivers’ real income has fallen"

I've been their customer for the past few months and I have to say, this service is quite amazing. It's not cheap, but it is extremely convenient and the cars and the drivers are really good.