By Don McCurdy
I suppose it happens to us all, but it appears that Uber is having an identity crisis. Consistently, throughout the world, you read about the "taxi app" Uber. Some regulators call Uber a taxi service, others have been beaten into submission and call it a "transportation network company" or a "shared ride service" depending on the city's developing discussion. Either way you slice it, whatever Uber et al are called, the regulators are having a hard time regulating them.
If regulators attempt to regulate them as taxicabs, ala Austin Texas, Uber picks up their marbles and goes home. Well, okay, goes some where else. If regulators are a little more flexible and use one of the other reference terms and aren’t too oppressive then Uber is satisfied and continues service.
Well, the European Union is reportedly ready to set that question straight. The European Court of Justice is hearing a case to determine if Uber is, in fact, a transportation company or a digital e-commerce platform. The European Union is reported to have expressed desires to lower national barriers to e-commerce and Uber is claiming it is just that. The court's ruling has no bearing on what happens in the US, but it would give ammunition to whatever side wins in future battles here in the states.
Uh, I'll use my Ipad, thanks.
It is reported that the crown jewel of the New York Taxicab is looking for ways to improve. Yes, the back seat television is trying to change its ways. The new kid on the block, Flywheel, is looking to gain market share by introducing survey driven tablets in the back seat of taxicabs.
I'm sure there have been some compliments to the backseat televisions, but I've never actually heard one. Complaints that the mute or off buttons don't work are at the top of the list. Uh, gee, if the main complaint is how you get to not listen to it, I would kind of take that as a hint as to their level of acceptance.
All of the programming providers are looking for ways to make the devices palatable to the public in order to avail themselves of the advertising opportunity. So, in a dogfight with Uber for market share, the beleaguered taxicab driver has an ally in the television programming providers in their quest to reduce the size of the albatross they've foisted on the drivers.
Nearly everyone I know carries a personal entertainment device that sometimes can be used to make telephone calls. So what real value are these devices? I admit that I'm not a Madison Avenue advertising genius, but who is stupid enough to buy advertising on these things?
Who dreamed that up?
It's being reported that the Institute for Justice has assisted a Little Rock Arkansas taxicab driver in getting a ruling that the city taxicab code is in violation of the Arkansas constitution. The judge ruled that the city's "public convenience and necessity" clause created an unconstitutional monopoly by limiting entrants into the industry without the approval of the only existing company.
This particular phrase is in numerous taxicab ordinances throughout the US. By compelling any new entrants to get the permission of their potential future competitor, cities across the land have protected the industry from competition. The introduction of Uber has demonstrated that regulators haven't done the taxicab companies any favors by protecting them from competition.
Who would have thought of that?
Reports from the UK are that Uber is set to ban riders who engage in flirting or "inappropriate or unsafe behavior." It seems that some Uber passengers have been using the "UberPool" shared ride service for "sex and dating." Say what? The article further stated that the activities were already banned in the US.
Now, perhaps, I'm not grasping how this scenario plays out, but how long would you have to cruise around in your Uber before a likely prospect shared your ride? In any case, Uber could ban you from the service if you're suspected of cruising in your Uber. Perhaps, the right programming on the New York City taxicab televisions could increase ridership.
Is that what did it?
San Antonio, Texas city council is recently reported to have voted 9-2 to continue their agreement with ride hailing companies. The sticking point was the ever popular fingerprint background checks. The taxicab industry thinks they're necessary and Uber doesn't.
According to the city, drunken driving arrests and fatalities have decreased since Uber and Lyft have returned to the Alamo city. As a carrot to the taxicab industry, some of the regulations and fees to the industry have been relaxed.
If improvement in the drunken driving statistics can be tied to the introduction of the ride hail companies then has this been If improvement in the drunken driving statistics can be tied to the introduction of the ride hail companies then has this been demonstrated anywhere else? If it has, why aren't the ride hail companies beating their chests about it? I wonder who did the study connecting these two events?
The more things change . . .
A recent article discussing the difference between what a taxicab driver earns and what an Uber driver earns brought to mind our recent election. How could that be you wonder? The study covered all of the major cities, New York, San Francisco, Boston, Washington DC, Los Angeles and Chicago. Really, is that it? Like the political pundits the study ignored all but the largest city that wasn't on the east or west coast.
There are four cities in Texas with larger populations than San Francisco and yet none of them were involved in the survey. The "flyover states" beyond Illinois weren't represented at all. I had to laugh at the "survey" and wonder if the point was to show that taxicab drivers earn more than Uber drivers?
That seemed to be the point the author was trying to make but he demonstrated little actual knowledge of how the taxicab industry works. He mentioned that Uber drivers aren't reimbursed for gas, but neither are taxicab drivers. Without a comparative study of the costs associated with both endeavors the numbers are meaningless.
Inevitable?
A recent article from San Francisco announced the filing of Chapter 11 for San Francisco's largest taxicab company. Citing large accident claims, Yellow Cab of San Francisco is reported to have sent a letter to their shareholders notifying them of the move.
Yellow Cab management is reported to have denied claims that Uber and Lyft had contributed to their financial woes. Uh huh. One of the comments attributed to an Uber driver was prophetic, "Uber is doing to them what Netflix and streaming did to Blockbuster video. It's inevitable, they're just going to die a slow and painful death until they're extinct."
Based on my discussions with Uber drivers and taxicab industry insiders it looks grim for the industry. I am not privy to the intricacies of Uber's algorithm, but if it is as presented to me by one of Uber's drivers with taxicab industry experience, they have advanced the ball beyond any taxicab GPS system and opened the industry up to someone heretofore excluded, the truly part time driver.
I cannot imagine a taxicab company overcoming the logistical problems associated with a mother wanting to take a few trips after dropping her kids off at school. I also cannot imagine regulators with the flexibility to allow such an endeavor. All of that would lead me to believe that the Uber driver may be right and San Francisco Yellow Cab's chapter 11 is just another convulsion in the ultimate death of the dinosaur.
If you have any comments regarding this or any of my articles please feel free to contact me at don@mcacres.com. - dmc
