Carr mentioning the 11 assaults per month by unlicensed cabbies in London, as if it's a knock on the Uber approach, is completely backwards.
An Uber-style system -- mobile-dispatched and mobile-paid -- is a stronger system of regulation than traditional city licensing, especially against threats like assaults.
Those assaults happen because the traditional system fails at enforcement, tracking, and providing an adequate supply. That causes riders to risk taking random cabs... or equivalently, leaves them helpless to distinguish the dangerous cabs.
In an Uber-like system, bad actors can't get assigned riders. Rider and driver can visually-authenticate each other via photos from their trusted devices -- much stronger than the 'mimeographed license taped to the window' system in legacy cabs. And more info is retained to investigate and resolve disputes after the fact.
So it is the malfunctioning legacy system that bears responsibility for those sorts of assaults/rapes. The legacy cab system is also responsible for other problems that have plagued it in the decades before Uber even existed, problems like rider/driver cash thefts, underservice at peak times and disfavored neighborhoods, and overcharging tourists. These will all be far less prevalent under an Uber-like system than the traditional system, and this improvement doesn't require a drain on city commissions and police.
Right, I've used Uber a few times, and you can rate the drivers AND the drivers can rate the passengers. In one case, a local driver was heckled by a drunk, rude woman and she was bounced from the system entirely. My service is better because the drivers aren't bitter and seething over the next possibly crappy fare.
I don't know how anyone could compare the service to a "gypsy"/unlicensed cab. Towncars and limos are not the same animal.
An Uber-style system -- mobile-dispatched and mobile-paid -- is a stronger system of regulation than traditional city licensing, especially against threats like assaults.
Those assaults happen because the traditional system fails at enforcement, tracking, and providing an adequate supply. That causes riders to risk taking random cabs... or equivalently, leaves them helpless to distinguish the dangerous cabs.
In an Uber-like system, bad actors can't get assigned riders. Rider and driver can visually-authenticate each other via photos from their trusted devices -- much stronger than the 'mimeographed license taped to the window' system in legacy cabs. And more info is retained to investigate and resolve disputes after the fact.
So it is the malfunctioning legacy system that bears responsibility for those sorts of assaults/rapes. The legacy cab system is also responsible for other problems that have plagued it in the decades before Uber even existed, problems like rider/driver cash thefts, underservice at peak times and disfavored neighborhoods, and overcharging tourists. These will all be far less prevalent under an Uber-like system than the traditional system, and this improvement doesn't require a drain on city commissions and police.