←back to thread

256 points reubensutton | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.68s | source
Show context
eggy ◴[] No.21628750[source]
If the concern over rider safety was that somebody could pose as an Uber driver and update a photo to make it work, why are black cabs not also deemed unsafe? Couldn't somebody borrow a friend's black cab, slap on a fake photo, and work the city? Maybe a stretch, and more work, but the same concern is there, no? I guess the black cabs have some powerful lobbyists in parliment? Yellow taxis in NYC were a monopoly, and medallions cost a fortune, and somehow it seems to have settled down a bit. Some latecomers to the medallion gig lost a lot in the transistion, but isn't that true of any new jump in technology or service?
replies(5): >>21628809 #>>21628876 #>>21629069 #>>21629617 #>>21630846 #
oarsinsync ◴[] No.21628809[source]
I don't know the answer to this, but I suspect it may have something down to the difference in penalty for fraudulent behaviour.

At the very least, if the only penalty is getting booted off the 'platform', getting added to Uber's platform is relatively cheap. Getting added to the black cab 'platform' requires getting licensed, which takes years and costs a lot of money.

I'd imagine that fraudulently impersonating a black cabbie comes with significantly more penalty than getting 'booted off the platform' (license revocation).

replies(1): >>21629081 #
dominotw ◴[] No.21629081[source]
Obviously solution is monopoly :D
replies(1): >>21629624 #
1. geocar ◴[] No.21629624[source]
Well, it's regulation.
replies(1): >>21630852 #
2. peristeronic ◴[] No.21630852[source]
Which will have cartelizing effects.