from Hacker News

Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

by titlex on 3/4/14, 11:30 AM with 54 comments

• by Joe8Bit on 3/4/14, 1:19 PM

  Looking at the debates there are in local governments in the US, it's interesting to look at how Uber has been received in London.

  In London, we've had a setup for licensing 'mini-cabs' for almost a decade (and they've been around for far longer than that). In essence, they are all registered and regulated by a central authority, in a similar (but much less strict) way to London's famous black cabs. The difference being that mini-cabs are normal cars, that must be prebooked.

  In that sense Uber fit right in, they're just another (one of 100's, if not 1000's) mini-cab providers. So for us in London, Uber hasn't really been revelatory at all except in the app driven aspects of their service (which is great).

  There's always been a tension between liveried cabs and these 'mini-cabs' in London, and that's something that's been really interesting to see played out in different markets in the US. Especially when it's tied to the more prevalent laissez-faire attitude that the US has to market regulation.

• by droopyEyelids on 3/4/14, 4:20 PM

  In Chicago all taxi drivers must obtain a Chauffeur's License before driving.

  The Chauffeur's license exam includes background checks, tests for common infectious diseases (tuberculosis), and a basic knowledge test of the city.

  Uber does background checks, but they don't test for TB and I've had three UberX drivers that didn't know where Lake Michigan was when we were two blocks away from it.

  Also, licensed taxi drivers have a number that you can report to 311 for safety purposes.

  I think Uber could have avoided a portion of this backlash if it would have taken more steps to ensure safety-parity while side-stepping the medallion limitations.

• by Dirlewanger on 3/4/14, 1:16 PM

  Fuck, I sincerely hope our generation (early-mid 20s) do not react like crusty sheltered curmudgeons in 15-30 years when they occupy these positions of power and are confronted with something they've never seen before. I'm not too hopeful though. One of the few constants in life is that while individually people may change, groups of them rarely do.

• by CurtHagenlocher on 3/4/14, 12:57 PM

  I'm genuinely curious: what is it that distinguishes these services from taxis? Why is it okay for one to be regulated but not the other -- or do proponents of these services generally think that taxis shouldn't be regulated either?

• by Shivetya on 3/4/14, 12:46 PM

  Last I read the bill in Georgia didn't clear the House on crossover day which is the last day a bill can be passed on to the Georgia Senate.

  With regards to the restrictions, the primary backers of the bill in Georgia were existing limo companies. I would be surprised if similar groups are not the reasons for the problems such companies face in other states.

• by iselkow on 3/4/14, 12:54 PM

  What are the arguments in favor of this regulation? I'm sure that anti-competition lobbies from limos, cabs, etc. play a role, but is there something safety-related as well? And if so, why would 150 Lyft drivers be safer than 400 Lyft drivers?

• by digitalengineer on 3/4/14, 12:51 PM

  Same as AirBNB. If you can't beat them... lobby to ban them.

• by ameister14 on 3/4/14, 4:59 PM

  Limiting the number of drivers Uber or Lyft is allowed to have working in an area is short term thinking, likely promoted in large part by existing taxi and limo companies that want to keep their businesses going.

  It's nothing compared to the regulatory push the teamsters will make when automated trucks begin to take on the existing industry. That said, I think it's a good lesson for SV companies and a warning to count on and prepare for government reaction to new technologies effect on regular jobs.

• by jheriko on 3/4/14, 2:52 PM

  it is sad to see this but thoroughly unexpected.

  all these useful and innovative startups are great, but they need to learn the most basic respect for the law and its spirit. this is the nth time something like this has happened in the startup community and its embarassing.

  we have taxi driver licenses and regulations for a reason. naivete isn't an excuse for blatantly circumventing them - even if you provide a genuinely useful service that we would all like to see grow and help redefine our futures...

• by sanctuslibre on 3/4/14, 5:37 PM

  It is surprising that on a news site focused around entrepreneurial capitalism in technology, the majority of the commenters are statist by default. Have you not heard libertarian/free market arguments on this topic or have you found them unconvincing?