←back to thread

256 points reubensutton | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.262s | source
Show context
maxehmookau ◴[] No.21628572[source]
I'm always amazed at how fatalist about this sort of thing Londoners are. Like losing Uber will be a massive problem for a huge portion of the population. London has, by FAR, the best, cheapest and most efficient public transport in the entire UK. Uber is, yeah, cheaper than a black cab but also why is it cheaper? Worse working conditions, VC-subsidised, lower standards for vetting (as we've seen here!) It's not sustainable, and while there's obviously a market need for a cheaper app-based minicab service in London, Uber has proven repeatedly that it can't be trusted to do that.
replies(4): >>21628637 #>>21628709 #>>21629172 #>>21630714 #
quest88 ◴[] No.21630714[source]
I don't know what I'm missing, but why not let customers decide if they want to use a lower standards for vetting service, and let drivers decide if they want worse working conditions. Note that I don't completely agree with your statements, but assuming they're true, my question still stands.
replies(2): >>21630889 #>>21632040 #
1. lmm ◴[] No.21632040[source]
Because by the time you find out whether a particular company's vetting was good enough, it's far too late. It's a lemon market, and regulation is the standard, economist-approved solution to those.