In the taxi v Uber war, I choose taxis ... until I choose an Uber, of course

This might sound as bold as declaring oneself both a Catholic and a Protestant in the 1950s, but I’m a taxi person and an Uber person. I toggle between them. That might lower my passenger rating from one star to zero, but I’m anybody’s. I support competition.

Sydney Airport taxi drivers went on strike last week when Ubers were given a nearby pick-up zone at the international terminal. This came as a surprise to me. I’d thought Uber’s pick-up zone was by the baggage carousels, men sidling up with subsonic offers. Drugs? Favourable exchange rates? No, disappointingly, just shady cut-price rides.

Illustration: Dionne GainCredit:

Uber drivers in airports have long been agents of me-first neoliberalism. Here’s your choice: join a line to pay a fare to a worker who’s been patiently queuing for an hour or more, or sneak out with a “disruptor” who’ll save you five minutes and 20 bucks. You’ve been through two airports, to fly. And now five minutes and 20 bucks mean that much to you that you’ll screw an orderly system where drivers are just trying to make a living? Now Uber drivers have their own zone and the taxi industry is forecasting its demise, again.

So much for airports (in Sydney, take the train).

Out in the world, there might be plenty of complaints about unreliable taxis but Uber has created science fiction in real life. Last week, my beloved had to go to a work event in peak-hour traffic. I drove her part of the way but got stuck. She bailed on me, confident she’d get there first by taking an Uber. (Her work had stopped using taxis after some taxi drivers were caught rorting Cabcharge.)

She made her own individualised booking for a car that was three minutes away. There’s her Uber – and there it isn’t. There it is again, only now it’s seven minutes. Hurray – it’s two minutes. Now it’s gone into the Vortex. Ah – it’s resurfaced, six minutes away but going backwards. Now it won’t move. He’s taking a toilet break (they call it “changing a tyre”.)

She’d paid extra for Uber Black, or Uber Green, but she got Uber Invisible. Twice the price, same disappearing trick. No, three times. No – just checked again – four times. Better lock it in before you pay a surge price for the magic car that keeps moving away from you.

She should’ve stuck with me. Going to the same destination, I drove to a train station, parked, walked, caught a train, then walked another 10 minutes. We arrived simultaneously. And they say romance is dead.

Where the Uber really failed her was on the Harbour Bridge. One of my favourite Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes is where Larry David pays a sex worker to ride in his car so he can use a transit lane. In Sydney, the sex worker might be as good company as Larry’s, but won’t get your Uber into a bus lane. This is a bit of an anti-Uber sealer for me (the access to the bus lane, not the absence of the sex worker). Taxis get to use the bus lane.

But isn’t that protectionism for taxis and unfair for Ubers? Access to bus lanes does favour taxis, but if you want to talk unfair, check the Victorian class action taken out by 8000 taxi and hire-car operators against Uber in 2019. This March, the Supreme Court awarded $271.8 million, the fifth-largest settlement in Australian history, to the taxi drivers after Uber admitted liability for anti-competitive chicanery.

The queue at the new Uber pick-up zone at Sydney Airport’s international terminal.Credit: Nick Moir

After feeding its lawyers for five years, Uber settled a case that alleged it had ripped off its drivers, misled and geo-blocked regulators, and used a “kill switch” to thwart investigations, among many other illegal practices. It had acted anti-competitively in dozens of countries around the world, orchestrating a strategy of breaking the law to get established, then lobbying to minimise scrutiny and regulation, and finally settling legal actions as if its dishonesty was just a sunk cost.

Under its founder, Travis Kalanick, it underpaid its drivers, played dirty tricks on rideshare competitors, evaded tax, endangered driver and passenger safety, “robo-fired” drivers based on algorithms, violated passenger and driver privacy, and discriminated on the basis of sex, race and disability. It has a rap sheet as long as Donald Trump (for whom Kalanick was an adviser).

Michael Donelly, from Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, who filed the Victorian action, called Uber’s actions in Australia “conspiracy by unlawful means”. Uber acknowledged that it had profited from avoiding regulation while establishing itself, but is now “regulated in every state and territory across Australia, and governments recognise us as an important part of the nation’s transport mix”. The compensation it had paid taxi operators was a cost of setting up a business. Better to ask forgiveness than seek permission.

If Uber has made one positive contribution, it has forced taxis to improve their service. Did they need it? Hell yeah. Ubers have a reputation for being cleaner, with more polite drivers (even if unlicensed, driving unaccredited vehicles, and paid a pittance). Uber had the gloss of the “gig economy” at a time when that was seen as an opportunity for tomorrow’s entrepreneurs.

Since Uber entered the Australian market, taxi companies have introduced an Uber-like booking app and better hygiene. People will always make decisions based on their experiences, and one dirty taxi or rude driver can make it the last you ever catch. But it’s worth pointing out that in Transport for NSW’s regular polling of 34,000 commuters, the satisfaction rating for taxis since Uber entered the market in 2018 has hovered between 86 and 90 per cent. Uber’s rating has been in the 90-92 per cent range. Uber entered the market by breaking laws, but its presence, as a competitor, has kept the industry on its mettle.

If measured by scumbag drivers who cut in, tailgate, fail to give way to other cars on roundabouts, queue across intersections and so on, taxis and Ubers are also competitive. Taxis at least have a sign to show you they’re coming. Ubers only have a sign to show you they’ve gone. For driver courtesy, neither is great; they’ll soon be as bad as the general public.

All else being equal, I’ll prefer a taxi to an Uber. Call me old-fashioned but I like to know what I’m getting and I support labour that has the power to organise. To think taxis are perfect is to expect Pollyanna at the wheel, however, so I would also happily take an Uber – as long as it’s a fair fight and not just every Uber-man for himself. But look out. If Uber’s strategy is to destroy the competitor, once its victory is achieved, there go your fantastic discounts and your clean cars.

As a customer, your foe is not one or the other, it’s anti-competitive behaviour that results in monopoly power. Share your love. Genuine law-abiding competition should be a tide that lifts all boats (and cars). On the other hand, if you want to be exploited, deceived or taken for a ride, wouldn’t you just go to a supermarket?

Malcolm Knox is a journalist, author and columnist for The Sydney Morning Herald. His latest novel is The First Friend.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.