Protests against Uber are heating up in Europe
online.wsj.comI'd like to highlight this part of the article:
> In several of the protests, drivers aren't specifically targeting Uber and other service providers, but what they say is outmoded regulation that makes it hard for them to compete. Part of Uber's challenge in Europe is the variety of regulations governing the continent, even among the 28-member European Union, each of which has different unions and different rules.
It's easy to dismiss off the protestors as old hat for not reacting gracefully to a changing market, but the issue at least in London seems to largely be with the fact that their existing businesses are subject to more costs and regulations than the kinds that Uber and other services are facing.
So let's spare a thought for the taxi drivers who've spent years building up their skills and knowledge of the local area, especially in places like London [1], and hope that they can be given the opportunity to compete with Uber. After all, if it weren't for the existing Taxi industry it's possible companies like Uber wouldn't even exist.
There should be space in the market for both the traditional offering and the fancy new one, and I hope that they can learn from each other and improve as a result of the competition, rather than die out.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying Uber should be forced to play by the rules. I'm saying that it might be time for the rules to be re-assessed based on developments in the industry.
[1]: In London, our famous black cabs are driven only by cabbies who've spent months learning London like the back of their hands in order to give their customers the fastest (and most interesting, in many cases) journey possible. See The Knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...
>It's easy to dismiss off the protestors as old hat for not reacting gracefully to a changing market, but the issue at least in London seems to largely be with the fact that their existing businesses are subject to more costs and regulations than the kinds that Uber and other services are facing.
This is the fundamental issue: Uber's business advantage is to evade regulations that apply to its competitors; its business strategy is to try to drive them out of the market before regulation catches up with them.
Don't you think that's a bit simplistic? In some places, like here in Italy, the taxi folks are pretty nasty:
http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Cronache/2006/07_Luglio/2...
Short English version: economist and professor writes an editorial advocating liberalizing taxis, and some taxi drivers printed a flyer with his face, home address and phone number, inviting taxis to honk when they go by his house.
And don't forget that a lot of that regulation - in some places - may have been written by the industry in question in order to maintain the status quo:
Uber tries to sell on the same, simplistic narrative: We're disruptive, we're good! Berlin for example has a very different Taxi market - it's mostly small players, 1-3 cars (there's roughly 7600 taxi in Berlin, distributed over around 3000 companies). Still, Uber tries to sell based on "we're breaking a monopoly" while skirting the regulation and strong-arming the competition.
The recent injunction against Uber in Berlin is ignored by Uber and the taxi company that fought for it in court stated that they won't pursue that since Uber threatend to countersue for damages, effectively threatening to use their funding as leverage over a company that owns three cars.
The case you're citing is also a bit problematic: Italy is a bit a problematic state when it comes to threatening and lack of help from courts. The same thing could happen to an economist and professor writing an editorial advocating against Uber - just not by taxi drivers, but by Uber drivers. I'd blame that on Italy, not on Taxis.
The taxi drivers in Italy are a reasonably powerful lobbying force. When they don't get their way, they get pretty nasty in lots of ways: parking their cars in the middle of already crowded roads and things like that.
My point was that the analysis of Uber was a bit simplistic in that there are some positive aspects to wrecking what was once a cozy monopoly created by regulations that are not there for the customer, but for the entrenched industry. It's probably different in different places, which is why a more complex, case by case analysis is likely needed.
I generally agree, although it's not just the disparity in regulations, but that the disadvantages of not being a licensed taxi are fading.
(You probably know all of the below being in the UK but I thought I'd flesh it out for those overseas.)
Black taxi and minicab operators have been in competition for decades, with regulation finally coming to minicabs about 10 years ago, and an uneasy but mostly quiet co-existence since then.
This co-existence has been underlined by the difference in how minicabs and taxis work. Taxis can be flagged down in the street, taxis can use taxi lanes, taxis can use official taxi ranks at airports and train stations. Minicabs, at least within the M25, are restricted in this regard. They have to be pre-ordered and within perhaps 5 miles of Charing Cross, it's probably a lot easier to flag down a taxi. Minicabs tend to focus on account work, pre-booked airport runs, courier stuff, and suburban journeys.
The problem Uber and things like it introduce is that the friction involved in getting a minicab is almost wiped out. You still have to pre-book, but they have cars milling around everywhere, all trackable, with no surly operators to call. You almost get the taxi ordering experience but with minicab-level drivers and prices. As far as I understand it, the contention of taxi drivers in cities like San Francisco is not so different to this.
So I contend the problem is that "minicab style" services are significantly increasing in quality through things like Uber and even the apps minicab companies are themselves producing (such as Addison Lee's) and therefore taxis are losing many natural advantages.
Having worked in the minicab industry many moons ago, my personal opinion is that this is no bad thing, since minicabs have had a deservedly notorious reputation in the past, and I don't think taxis will die out because there's always going to be a "flag down" market.
What perhaps would redress the balance would be applying the congestion charge to minicabs to help maintain central London as a predominantly taxi zone, and enforcing a toll for minicab airport pickups. It's all about taking baby steps to maintain the uneasy balance that has so far worked for decades. (Or, alternatively, open the whole thing up, shake off 150 years of regulations, and have everyone on a level playing field.. but that won't go down well.)
Every time I have gotten an Uber in London the car has been a Toyota Prius, I don't know if that particular car is still congestion charge exempt but even if it isn't what's to stop minicabs all starting to drive vehicles which are exempt?
They are licensed. Licensed minicabs of any type are currently exempt, I believe. The rule could simply be that all minicabs are subjected to the fee, it'd be enforced by license plate as it is for other motorists.
As a London native for almost 10 years I cant tell you how many times I have been ripped off by black cab drivers taking longer routes then they could have. I also cant tell you how difficult it can be at certain times to find a taxi to take you home so people inevitably end up using unlicensed "mini cabs" to get home. This all because the licensing regulations are stuck in the stone age. Hopefully Uber will drag London kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
As a side note I also dont think there is anything stopping a London black cab driver from signing up for Uber.
No, I don't think so either. But that doesn't mean they should. Firstly, they might like driving their black cab a lot more than Uber's cars. I'm a big, big fan of the hackney carriage for the way it's designed specifically for carrying 5 passengers in this context.
Perhaps it would be nice to see Uber using hackney carriages, I dunno. At any rate, I agree that Uber should be a force for good here in improving the licensing regulations.
Personally I've always had good experiences with black cab drivers, and many times they've given me a discount. But I've also found the same thing with Uber drivers.
Minicabs are usually licenses, look for the logo on the car. Can get them pretty much any high street. They are banned from picking up passengers on the street but a loophole is they hang outside of major clubs and you can ask the club for a taxi which they can then pick you up.
Or do you actually mean the unlicensed ones of people going around saying "oi, need a cab?"
> As a side note I also dont think there is anything stopping a London black cab driver from signing up for Uber.
Uber just today announced black cabs as an option in London. I'm not really sure what I feel about this, there is very little differentiation between Hailo and Uber now.
i've used addison lee whenever i struggle to find a cab (or know i'm going to have trouble find a cab). except for a couple of occasion where the mini cab driver has been a bit late, i've never felt i've had cab issues in london.
'to give their customers the fastest etc.,'. Nice if it works that way but plenty of customers don't agree that that's what happens. And of course it is inarguably a monopoly.
As noted by one journalist
"If black cab drivers are as good as they think they are, then they’ll beat the new competition on a level playing-field. If they’re not as popular, they’ll have to bring down their high prices. Either answer leaves the consumer better off."
The article barely mentions it, but you can take a much shorter version of the knowledge that only covers a specific area. Means that black cab can only pick up from the area they did the test (but can drive outside). Quite often it means that cab driver doesn't know squat and uses a GPS anyway.
The ones that do the full test don't like the guys that did the short test.
@basicallydan - related to your point about The Knowledge. Doesn't satnav make that test somewhat anachronistic now?
It depends largely on the satnav. London is such a complex city with a lot of nooks and crannies that people don't really understand and that satnav may or may not know about. Black cab drivers are also privy to the experience of knowing what places are busy when, and why, which satnav tools often can do too but not necessarily to the same degree of accuracy as a black cab driver whose job is to think on their feet and react to changes in the environment based on what they know and what they observe.
With a minicab driver simply following instructions from a satnav, you might as well just have a self-driving car, which is no bad thing.
With a black cab driver using their knowledge and experience and eschewing the instructions from a system which wasn't designed specifically for London, you may have a more reliably fast journey.
Plus, they could even give tourists some interesting facts about the places they're driving through!
Also, in the UK taxis can go many places where regular motorists aren't allowed, particularly in big cities like London. It seems unlikely that a satnav, even one that provides some sort of real time traffic information, will provide accurate information about expected journey times taking restricted routes into account.
There is no point in this training and buying extra hardware. I don't believe that there should be any extra regulations for it, but to solve the problem you need political capital. Make it simple and fair to everybody. For licence pay x for month. For entering strict city centre, extra y.
Try taking a black cab from Heathrow airport to anywhere just a few miles away (basically anywhere which isn't a full fare to the centre of London). You will literally be screamed and sworn at.
I've used a black cab from Heathrow to central London a few times, but I still find using the Heathrow express more convenient and cheaper. Later getting a cab in Paddington to anywhere in central London is a breeze... compared to the M4/A4 constant traffic jams.
EDIT: I misread, this is my response when thinking they wanted to go TO Heathrow
Well then, that's a perfect example of a situation where Uber would be more appropriate. Black Cab drivers are meant for quick journeys through London. Why should they go well out of their way? It's their business.
(although, there's no need for people to scream and swear at you)
FROM heathrow.
LHR is on the outskirts of London. Asking a cabbie to go even further out from the airport is kinda rude. That's what minicabs are for.
Oops, my bad - I misread. Sorry :)
> It's easy to dismiss off the protestors as old hat for not reacting gracefully to a changing market, but the issue at least in London seems to largely be with the fact that their existing businesses are subject to more costs and regulations than the kinds that Uber and other services are facing.
If they're not old hat, and so on, and their business pays more taxes, why not branch off into Uber clones? If Uber does it, they can too.
They've done that already: Hailo. Interesting story:
I'm not sure I believe as strongly in the idea in places like London, where the official cab service is both highly regulated, and quite good.
In the US, the regulations for cabs tend to do little but drive up medallion prices. Uber cars are a much-needed disruption in terms of availability and quality, but you still can't really say that the drivers know much of anything about the city. If we had the equivalent of a London cab here in SF, I'd always choose that over Uber, yet I think you can probably undercut the price of an official taxi in London simply by ignoring the rules. That seems wrong.
If unregulated competition kills a good taxi service, that seems like a drastically different outcome than what's happening here in the states.
I just do not see why uber can be disruptive AND follow the rules. Here in Sweden they are lobbying to get exception from the rules, i.e. not having a meter and not having price comparisons on the cars.
It's not hard to be disruptive if you break the rules
Their beef with Sweden's regulation is odd, since Sweden has an extremely deregulated taxi market. Pricing is entirely set by the operator, subject to only two consumer-notification conditions that you note. You can charge whatever you want, but: 1) you must legibly advertise the price on the exterior of the car; and 2) you must have a meter which is inspected to ensure that you are actually charging the prices that are advertised. That's pretty similar to how, say, butchers are regulated: you can sell your meat for whatever you want, but must advertise the per-kilo price, and must use an official scale whose calibration has been validated. In the case of taxis, you must also have vehicle insurance that covers for-pay carriage of passengers, but that's just a basic road requirement (all drivers are required to have insurance that covers the kind of driving in which they're engaged).
Unlike NYC (for example), there isn't any kind of "medallion" system, government-regulated pricing, etc. And unlike London, there is no exam requiring drivers to have any particular knowledge. If anything the outcry from consumers is more often in the other direction, especially from tourists. Tourists who aren't aware that Sweden has completely deregulated taxi pricing are sometimes scammed into paying incredibly high fares, because there's nothing illegal about charging $500/km, as long as that's the stated price. (The fact that Sweden uses SEK instead of EUR helps this particular scam, since many tourists, especially those just arriving at airports, have no intuitive sense of what a SEK/km price means.)
But why require every car to have this bulky fixed function meter device when a smartphone app can do the job just as well?
Sometimes the rules themselves need to be disrupted.
> But why require every car to have this bulky fixed function meter device when a smartphone app can do the job just as well?
Can it? How can us be certain that the smartphone is actually the one that was in the car when the rate was approved? How does "fixed rate advertised on the outside of the car" match up with ubers surge pricing? Why does a rule that the majority of the population evidently feels comfortable with need to be disrupted?
I don't think disruption is necessarily a good thing. It can be, but it also can bring a ton of negative results.
"Just as well" in all factors? What's the audit trail for smartphone app? Can modifications to the app be detected, or the app replaced with a real-looking fake app which favors the driver? Might the driver have two smart phones, one with real app and another with a fake app, and choose one based on the likelihood of not being caught?
Those scenarios are much harder to pull off with a "bulky fixed function meter device" designed to be inspectable.
Why replace something that works and can be systematically verified for something that will lead to all kinds of complications and may be outdated in 5 years?
Sometimes something that just works doesn't need to be disrupted.
> when a smartphone app can do the job just as well?
Can it? GPS isn't to be relied upon, and a bad actor can mess with it pretty easily.
Sad to see the taxi drivers. What they don’t understand is that soon they will be obsolete. As many other groups. IT startups are extremely disruptive and changes like these are hard to stop. With Google driverless cars around, it’s safe to say that in 30 years no one will need a driver. Uber and competitors could just buy driverless, extra-comfortable cars and get over with.
The problem is, what do you do with thousands of people working today as cabbies? Or you don’t give a shit about a large % of the population not having an income (and thus not being a consumer).
Who is that "you" that is supposedly don't give a shit?
What's even more important, the tech disruption is coming to the vast range of industries and many jobs will be obsolete much sooner than most expect.
Sorry, might have made it clear. By 'you' I was referring to governments. What do you do as a government.
Cab drivers is just one small segment. That is a very good point to consider and even we, as a collective hivemind, on the HN don't pay enough attention to the problem of extreme rate at which jobs will diminish in the future. Start-ups won't solve that.
If we don't find a scalable, sustainable, viral business model to disrupt capitalism and focus on positive externalities humanity may be heading for a disaster and this one won't be a surprise.
30 years?! Good luck with that. Manual cars will be around for a long, long time.
Sure, F1 cars won't drive alone and I will always be eager to get the breeze on my back when riding my car.
But driverless cars will be available for usage in 10 years from now IMHO. Then what everyone would ask is why pay a cab driver?
I give as much of a shit about London cab drivers as when they refused to take me for their stuck up their arse reasons.
It's interesting how the tech start-up community suffers from the same inability to shift perspective that Microsoft had when it became a powerful megacorp but still saw itself as the underdog.
Uber is not the plucky little start-up going up against big, slow incumbent corporations, like many tech start-ups did in the past.
Uber is the heavily funded 800-pound gorilla going after the livelihoods of the little guy.
So yes, some taxi-markets could do with changes, but the heavy handed and callous approach of greed-driven "disruption" is totally out of place here. We're talking ordinary hard working cab drivers, not fat cats in the boardroom of MegaCorp.
If anybody wonders where the growing hate against the tech community comes from, they may want to start looking in the mirror.
There's a difference between arguing that innovative disruption may temporarily cause some pain and openly pissing on those who find themselves on the wrong side of that change. There is way too much of the latter going on here.
I guess you haven't had the misfortune of being ripped of by London taxi drivers.
Taxi's in Dublin have been a problem for a long time especially for people with up the socioeconomic ladder. The quality of the vehicles can vary as well as the manner of the driver. Regulation states the vehicles have to be clean but the driver is welcome to wear whatever they like and they often wear tracksuits and often espouse racist views (especially against Nigerian taxi drivers) which undermines the perceived professionalism of the industry here.
Uber has really taken off here in part because the taxi industry wasn't catering to this need. I do believe Uber is following the rules because they aren't a taxi service. They can't pick up people who flag them down off the street. They really are just a very sophisticated private car service and shouldn't fall under taxi regulation. Since the credit card details are held by Uber it also ensures the passengers behave themselves unlike in normal taxis where drunk or rowdy people vomit or make a mess in the car putting the driver off the road for the night making the entire taxi service somewhat inefficient.
It boils down to the simple question:
Would you rather live in a world where the service, its quality, reliability, cost and professionalism is that of the current taxi services or the newcomers like Uber?
I have personally been ripped off, deceived about the route and pricing and forced to put up with rude drivers and operators so many times and in so many places that I cheer any competition, be it public transport or car sharing.
Why should we be excited for some US company siphoning off money from people who are already at the lower end of the wage scale?
Not sure about the UK cabs way of work. But what stops them being a UBER cab driver as well? Isn't it a additional channel? Like in radio taxi can't they simple make themselves busy when they get UBER call so that the cab company does not assign them any additional pickup/drop?
At least in Sweden, to be a cab you have to clearly mark your car as a taxi, clearly post your rates in the window and have a verified taxi meter in your car to make sure you actually charge the posted rates, and Uber doesn't want to do any of those things.
Is this the first EU-wide strike, or has there been any such things in the past?
EU-wide it is indeed the first one, but as far as I know there have already been quite a lot regional ones.
More people have heard about Uber thanks to these strikes than they ever would have (for the time being anyway...)
Taxi drivers in Europe are paid a fraction of the profits they get from clients, most of it goes to taxes and the operators running the cab networks.
Uber's drivers are in a similar position.
So what do we have here? Another example of pitting poor against poor, for the interests of one group of rich against another, emerging, group of rich.
I almost admire the skillful orchestration at play here, although probably I shouldn't.
http://www1.salary.com/CT/New-London/Taxi-Driver-salary.html
Not exactly poor but paid like many other jobs in London which probably don't come with tips. Trouble is that the internet has just about surplanted 'The knowledge' and made it available to all.
That appears to be a place in Connecticut, not the London under discussion here.
> Uber's drivers are in a similar position. Except that now they have to pay Uber as well.
Here's from their FAQ
"No - there is no cost to sign up with Uber, only a small commission taken on each completed trip."
I couldn't find the commission rates though; is it publicly available?