Sometimes it would screw over the drivers, sometimes the customers, and depending on how it was priced you could force that to one side or the other.

Distance + time is the most fair solution, as if there's no traffic and you get there super fast the driver still gets a fair fee (unlike if it was time only), if there's lots of traffic and it takes ages to get there then the customer doesn't have to pay a huge fee (like if it was time only).

Personally I'd never use a taxi service that charged only by time. I'm OK with time+distance, or with distance only (which is also used in some places).

> Personally I'd never use a taxi service that charged only by time.

That's why most taxi services are not time-only, but limo services are (you're going to rent a limo for an evening, but you'll barely drive it)

It's worth noting that with Uber's current price structure, if you get there super fast the fee is small, and if it takes ages it's huge. So it sounds more like worst of both worlds.

That's the way most taxi services work - if it takes longer you pay more because the driver is spending more time getting you there, however it's not as bad as if the price was just time and not distance.

Yeah - just saying that if the goal is to have a function that's medium for both high and low speeds, m+s is not it.

It definitely makes sense to pay more for longer distances, but I for one do not want to pay extra for slower travel. Something like m-s or m+s^-1 would be better.

Of course you don't want to pay more for a slower trip, but taxi drivers don't want to have their hourly profit reduced by being stuck in traffic.

At the end of the day, they could reduce the time cost so that going slower doesn't cost more, but they'd have to also raise the distance cost, so that drivers (and taxi companies) still make the same amount of money on average.

But combining them, the way it works now, makes the most sense, as when you use a taxi service you are paying for the technical costs of getting somewhere (fuel, etc.) and the cost of your driver's time, so why shouldn't it be calculated that way.

I'm not paying for the driver's time - the taxi company is responsible for that. I want a transport that takes me from point A to point B in the shortest time possible, and paying for the driver's time (at a higher rate, no less) is actively against my interests, since it disincentivizes speed.

You could make the argument that chauffeurs are paid for on a time-only basis, but then we're talking about a driver who I can tell to wait for me outside the store or party, a driver who can tell me about the sights on the scenic route we're taking, or a driver who will take me all over the county on business. Then you could add a basic wear or fuel surcharge per m, but again it should be decreasing (and small).

I haven't used chauffeur services myself, but a quote I found charges less per hour than Uber and nothing per km and no starting charge. They do have higher minimums, though. So I guess Uber could be presenting themselves as a chauffeur company for shopping trips, with 50%-150% markups when moving. As the article points out, they've failed to make that case.

> I'm not paying for the driver's time

Of course you are - whether you do so directly or through a company is irrelevant, either way the driver needs to get paid.

They could change it so that you don't pay more for slow trips, but in return fast trips would become more expensive to even it out, otherwise all you're doing is taking money away from the company/drivers. Then people who travel at peak traffic times are being subsidized by those who travel when the roads are empty.

(Personally I actually prefer non-metered trips, where I know that A to B always costs £x regardless of traffic, but there's certainly a lot of logic in charging by both distance and time.)

Maybe they saw the manufactured outrage as a good PR opportunity.

That only lasts so long, until people get tired of it and start looking into the details, of course.

This definitely seems to have been Uber's tactic since the day they launched. In SF it worked because the taxi industry is an unholy mess, but that isn't replicable everywhere.

Exactly, they have to obey the law of the land. If the limousines in Sweden are supposed to charge by time, then do that. Change your app to charge by time in that particular country.

It's not really about limo v not limo, it's really the other way around: you can charge either for time only or for time + distance, if you charge for time + distance you need a tamper-proof meter.

Time-based is mostly used by limousine services and time+distance for "regular" taxis for obvious reasons (a limo tends to be rented for a long time but not to move far, the opposite is true of regular taxis) but nothing prevents a limo service from charging for time+distance (besides looking cheap) and nothing prevents "regular" cabs from charging for time only.

Why not work to change the law since it doesn't make sense? What's the point of keeping it?

As far as I can tell (and I'm not an expert in swedish taxi law) what the law says is you can charge by time (as a limousine), or by time+distance (as a taxi), and if you charge by time+distance you must use a certified tamper-proof taxi meter and have a price sticker in your window.

Which of these laws do you consider not to make sense?

The certified tamper-proof meter... and the sticker in the window. You're using an app to arrange transport. All of the information you need is there.

They have not, however, made any attempt to get the app approved to serve that function.

Not necessary ... it's MY app. The problem with not having approved and sealed meters is that I don't know if you've screwed with it or not. I know driver hasn't screwed with my iPhone app.

It's not your app. It's Ubers app, installed on your phone.

How do you know Uber hasn't screwed with your app? And how does the driver know that you are not screwing him with a tampered app?

It's not only you and the driver that need mutual trust either, the tax administration also has to trust the app.

Which is a great argument to make, but you still have to make the argument. As I understand it, they have not attempted to do so.

I think a good enhancement of the law would be an exception for charging by distance without a legacy meter, if the price and distance was quoted and agreed in advance and the client has means to compare the offer before accepting it (which they should, if they are using a smartphone)