They've already invested an average of 34 months learning the London streets. You'd get a similar reaction if itw ere possible, say, for someone to become a doctor by signing up with a startup rather than going to medical school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...
If you could be a 95% effective doctor by using a $200 consumer electronics device, it'd be perfectly fair for people to be "Uber doctors" without going to medical school. And existing doctors would be up in arms, because technology rendered their investment almost worthless, not because they could present a meaningful challenge to the usefulness of "Uber doctors".
"The knowledge" may very well at one point have been a reasonable requirement for a taxi driver, but at least as GPS satnavs got good, it's just not anymore. The purpose of "the knowledge" today is only to serve as a barrier to entry to protect incumbents against competition.
Edit: Footnote on doctors: It's a poor analogy as a taxi-driver taking a poor route (picking good routes is the singular advantage the knowledge provides) doesn't carry anywhere near as bad consequences for the "patient" as a doctor making a mistake.
It won't be very long before NPs using expert systems will do a better job than physicians using the same old techniques they always have, for at least 95% of patients.
That's a great analogy. Its only flaw, as you say, is that doctors should be regulated closely- but to me this only brings up the question of why cabbies are as regulated.
It's kind of like if travel agents were regulated, and suddenly expedia or kayak existed. They can do an almost-as-good job through technology, and a "mistake" analogous to the taxi driver taking a poor route, i.e. Expedia connecting you through a worse city or not finding a deal 10% cheaper.
The $200 tool is coming to disrupt doctors eventually, who act as human pattern matchers for most of their time and much of what they do could easily be replaced (and even done better) via systems like Watson. When this happens, it will be great for the developing world where doctors aren't very common anyways, while first world doctors will probably be able to shut it out for awhile until the advantages are crystal clear and undeniable.
The same with self driving cars, its not like Uber or the taxi industry are long for this world without drastically changing business models (maybe 10 or 15 years tops).
In theory, that's great. In practice, cabbies still rip people off sometimes. I'd be happier if they always took the Google Maps route.
It's sad but they are simply a victim of technology. Before sat nav, minicab drivers were very unreliable. They would get lost, they would have to consult maps, etc. Now, a minicab is as good or better than a taxi.
Ugh, no. There are times when the Google Maps route would take way longer than even reasonably obvious alternative routes. Particularly in London. Google tries to pick the quickest route, but these roads are often way too busy.
As usual it turns out that there are good & bad taxi drivers, and good & bad mini-cab drivers / companies too.
> I'd be happier if they always took the Google Maps route.
Part of being a good taxi-driver is knowing which parts of the city are going to busy at different points of time.
If a taxi takes a detour from the best map-presented route you don't know if they're giving you a faster journey, or ripping you off. Too often people assume the latter.
Maybe I was being prematurely futuristic and unfair, but it seems that at some point Google Maps will be better at routing than the average cabbie.
Google has all the information a cabbie has (road layout, major disruptions, historical traffic patterns, speed limits). They also have real-time traffic information. This is the kind of problem that computers tend to beat humans at, eventually.
Using the same kind of volunteers who contribute to OpenStreetMap it should be possible to update routing based on temporary road-works (which might last for 3-5 days, here in Scotland), which would otherwise catch drivers out by surprise with detours.
@_broody: if it becomes a race to the bottom and it will not provide a decent income then people will not practice it (like any other job). Why not let the demand & competition regulate the market instead of some bureaucracy ? If my job (programming) becomes agglomerated will someone regulate it to provide me a decent income ?
Well, this shows the legislation is broken. Uber drivers can work without having to pay for medallions/licenses/what have you, and having to fulfill cumbersome regulations. If you rule they get a pass, then so should the cab drivers.
They'll still get hosed because without a medallion system bottlenecking the amount of suppliers, taxi service becomes a race to the bottom that can't support a decent living. But at least they won't be _twice_ hosed like they are now.
EDIT: I'm not saying Uber is wrong and should be stopped and the taxi drivers protected. On the contrary, the legislation could be opened up, dropping both protection and regulation of the taxi industry, now that Uber exists as a competing solution. However, the current state of affairs, where some drivers are taxed and regulated (taxis) and others are not (Uber drivers) is just going to make the former group collapse under the burden of regulation.
Also, I'm merely observing that opening the market to a huge supplier pool effectively means the end of the taxi driving profession (for reasons that have already been stated a hundred times before). Not saying this is good or bad, it's just the way the market works.
Taxis have a regulated taxi-meter. These are auditable and they enforce the set rates. This meter is a requirement to pick up people from the street with no booking.
Cabs do not have a meter. The customer can set a price before the journey. These must be pre-booked by phone. In theory there is a lot of regulation around criminal checks etc.
Uber exists in a grey middle ground. They are booked via the app; and the app acts like a meter. The regulator for London has recently said that the app is not a meter and thus Uber is fine.
So long as Uber is complying with local laws I'm fine with them operating. I guess they should be prepared for some of the backlash they'll face when an Uber driver murders a passenger. (Because, with a large enough number of drivers and passwngers and years it'll happen some time).
Sorry something doesn't strike me as correct here. Do you mean that "taxis" working with Uber don't actually have a Taxi-License? How is this even legal?
In many countries, including the UK, there's a big difference between "private car hire" services that are not allowed to pick up passengers without pre-arranging the hire, and taxi services which can pick up passengers at the kerb or at taxi ranks.
Private car hire services (minicabs in the UK) does not have the same licensing requirements as black cabs (licensed taxis)
i thought a car hire service isnt a taxi if you first pre-arrange the pickup (whcih is what i thought uber is). That you can do it quickly via an app on a phone is irrelevant.
It's the other way around in London parlance. Taxis are more tightly regulated but have freedom to pick up from ranks, can be flagged in the street, etc. Minicabs (sometimes generically called "cabs") are also regulated but to a much lesser extent and are predominantly private drivers.
I believe there is a large investment in becoming a taxi driver in London.
It takes years of training (see, the Knowledge[1]) and money.
Uber drivers presumably do not have to make such a big investment, so permitting them to go without the same regulations taxi drivers need creates a lot of extra, cheaper competition.
I also suspect that the taxicab regulations would prohibit taxicabs from using alternative meters, so taxi drivers could not be Uber drivers at the same time.
Because they've already gone through the expensive, time consuming part. They would have very little to gain from switching from a black cab to an Uber car, and a lot of potential customers to lose.
