Mayor Bloomberg Battles Fleet Owners Over NYC 'Taxi of Tomorrow'

An anonymous reader writes "In April, Mayor Mike Bloomberg announced that the Nissan NV200 minivan had won a citywide competition to replace the current cab model, the Ford Crown Victoria, in a phased-in period of five years. Cab owners sued, pointing out that New York City law requires that hybrid electric models be available for immediate use for cab medallion owners; that excludes the current Nissan NV200, with its 2.0 liter, 4-cylinder engine rated at a combined 24 mpg. The NV200 also has poor accessibility for wheelchair users. After a state judge blocked the mayor's plan, Bloomberg allegedly told the CEO of Taxi Club Management at a private club, 'Come January 1st, when I am out of office, I am going to destroy your f--king industry.' Tim Fernholz of Quartz speculates that Bloomberg (a billionaire) may be planning to launch a cab-hailing service like Uber, which was just allowed back onto the streets of New York, with significant limitations."

Comments

Sure. OK...

[Frosty Piss]

After a state judge blocked the mayor's plan, Bloomberg allegedly told the CEO of Taxi Club Management at a private club, 'Come January 1st, when I am out of office, I am going to destroy your f--king industry.'

And once again, Slashdot lowers itself to the level of the Nationa Enquirer with titalating rumor and inuendo. And this is "News for Nerds"? Oh yes, Slashdot shit-canned that moniker. Probably because it is no longer factually true.

OH! Wait! There's a reference to an electric car! OK, I'm sorry, I'm totally wrong. Great "scoop", Mr. "Editor" Soulskill...

Re:Sure. OK...

[Etherwalk]

And once again, Slashdot lowers itself to the level of the Nationa Enquirer with titalating rumor and inuendo. And this is "News for Nerds"? Oh yes, Slashdot shit-canned that moniker. Probably because it is no longer factually true.

OH! Wait! There's a reference to an electric car! OK, I'm sorry, I'm totally wrong. Great "scoop", Mr. "Editor" Soulskill...

There is a big difference between an allegation and a rumor. A rumor generally arises without an attributed source. An allegation just means whoever is reporting it doesn't want to put their name in the ring as saying it is true (i.e. they don't want to get sued for defamation).

When the rumor is about a billionaire, many people ESPECIALLY don't want to get sued for defamation, because the billionaire can easily sue.

Re:Sure. OK...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's actually two stories here. One is Bloomberg vs. taxi owners and others unhappy over the choice of the Nissan as the new standard vehicle. The other is what Bloomberg might do after he leaves office - something tells me he's not planning to get a single digit handicap on the golf course. A digital technology-driven taxi service would fit directly into a lot of his strengths, so I think this story will have legs (er, or wheels).

Re:Sure. OK...

[Kreigaffe]

Maybe it's a rumor, but the thing is -- I'm pretty sure it's not. That's Bloomberg. Right there. That's how he is.

Do you forget this was the guy who headed up an illegal gun running operation under the guise of an undercover sting, despite having no jurisdiction or legal authority to run a sting, let alone a sting taking place across STATE lines? His little operation actually ruined the investigative work of REAL law enforcement.

He's King Asshat, that's why NYC seems to keep re-electing him.

Re:Sure. OK...

[Le Marteau]

If it's news, and nerds find it interesting and read it, does it not therefore qualify as news for nerds? Maybe whoever put it up understood what nerds like to read about.

Personally, I love NYC and am fascinated by Bloomberg. This is the only thing on Slashdot I have read today.

Should I turn in my nerd card because I wanted to read about NYC and not Linux this morning?

Re:Sure. OK...

[drsquare]

So a rumour is when there's no source, but an allegation is when there's no source either, but it's ok because the hack knows someone but won't tell?

If you're talking shit about someone in the media and don't have the proof to back it up you should be sued.

Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[alen]

You can still get a cab in manhattan for a profitable trip. What is uber going to change?

Not like drivers are going to take on an unprofitable trip just because of the Internet

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[MightyYar]

When I see the huge lines of cabs at taxi stands and the airports, I find myself wondering if a routing algorithm could better utilize these idle cabs. Any operator who can better utilize the cabs will beat out the others.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[rossz]

It was attempted. A system that automates the routing of taxicabs via voice calls and cell phone apps is available and works extremely well. The companies that control the taxi business in NYC made sure it couldn't get a foothold. One of the reasons it is disliked by the entrenched powers is it eliminates the dispatcher. Now you'd think that is a good thing since it reduces overhead while increasing efficiency. Except it also eliminates the bribes the taxi drivers need to pay to the dispatchers if they ever want to get work.

As much as I dislike Bloomberg, I hope he is successful in destroying the current taxi business status quo.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[TapeCutter]

Not sure how taxi's operate in NYC but the ones I drove here in Oz have a meter that ticks over after a fixed time or distance, whichever comes first, the fees are mandated by state law so all taxis charge the same amount for the same trip. There's also a flagfall fee just for getting in the cab, so really there's no such thing as an unprofitable trip.

Having said that the only way to make a reasonable income from a cab is to make sure a customers arse is in the seat at all times, getting a 5min job that puts you at the back of a 2hr queue is just the luck of the draw. Although I have heard that airport staff here in Melbourne are issuing "short trip" coupons to drivers who get stuck with a local job, it entitles them to come back to the front of the queue, but again that can happen at any rank and most ranks are not staffed/policed like they are at the airport. Also 5min jobs themselves are not the problem, on Friday and Saturday nights you want the 5min jobs because you know you can get another one straight away, doing that all night on your home turf is about as profitable as taxi driving gets.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[EmperorOfCanada]

In my town they went with a GPS and electronically dispatched system. I asked a driver what changes it made and he said that it nearly instantly doubled his income and then it nearly doubled again over the next couple of months. First he said that the old drivers had some sort of kickback system with the dispatchers. So he could be pretty well parked across the street from a call yet the dispatcher would send a taxi that was presently across town and presently had a fare. So he said that with the modern system the old dispatchers and drivers all quit overnight. Another set of drivers that quit were the illiterate drivers who couldn't work the system. He also said that the silence was bliss. If his computer bleeped he had a fare but otherwise it was reading time.

The slower increase in his income was when everybody discovered that the computer based cab company was much much faster.

Now it was too early at that point but one problem for him would be that the training time to become a fairly good cabbie would be nearly zero. You didn't have to learn to work the radio and with the computer both telling you how to get to your fair and the route to dropping them off you could be pretty well fresh off the boat and still be able to be a halfway decent cabbie in this city.

So when all is said and done the technological solution will benefit the customer and the cab company but not the worker.

Personally I am a huge fan of technological improvements but society is not well structured to prevent people from really getting hurt by all this. As robotics take this all to the next logical step there will be a point where very few owners are able to have huge businesses with almost zero workers. While individually this will be great for the producers and providers, the real base of any economy is consumption not production. So without employed people there will be little consumption and much rioting and crime. Society needs to be restructured so as to make sure that inequality doesn't get out of control. This would even hurt those who would like to be unequal.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[quarterbuck]

It is not much different in US. The difference ,at least in NY , is that
1) You need a medallion to drive a Yellow Cab - this fixes the number of Cabs that are allowed in the city. The medallion often costs hundreds of thousands of dollars or recently close to a million dollars.
2) Automated taxi hailing systems were banned until recently (or atleast they were being sued even if Mayor Bloomberg was pro-Cab-Hailing-Apps)
3) Taxi despatch was a completely different operation (I think it was semi-public or completely run by the city). They also control what kind of taxis were allowed (Crown victorias now, Nissan Vans in future). In most other non manhattan US cities, Taxi despatch is privately run by cab companies. The rules for what cabs are allowed is also easier in most other cities (usually cars 4) Depending on the city, Livery cabs are also allowed. These cabs cannot pick up traffic on the streets, but can operate a call center to allow customers to call for service.
5) Uber is an app that tries to create an automated livery service for major US cities.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[Nimey]

The next logical step is a driverless taxi.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[mysidia]

So when all is said and done the technological solution will benefit the customer and the cab company but not the worker.

It seems like it will benefit the workers as a whole -- more fares, at the expense of the above-average workers; they will have a lot of skill and experience developed that is no longer provides any value. In other words... it will achieve "fairness" among all workers, regardless of how many years they have been working, and "unfairness" in the sense, that having worked for so many years and learned to work the system by providing dispatchers kickbacks will no longer result in greater profit for the worker.

As robotics take this all to the next logical step there will be a point where very few owners are able to have huge businesses with almost zero workers.

I don't see that happening at this point.

Society needs to be restructured so as to make sure that inequality doesn't get out of control.

It seems that technology causes equality, not inequality.

It eventually results in skill and experience being devalued.

Managers, including accountants, CFOs, and CEOs are not immune to this either.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[dryeo]

The economy works just as much by trickle up as anything. If most people have no money, they're not going to be buying the stuff that the companies are producing so it's not like they'll have any incentive to produce stuff that no ones buying.
There's also the fact that massive social inequality often leads to violent revolution which is really not good for business either.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[Sabriel]

Parent said no such thing. Parent said "society needs to be restructured", not how. Why do you assume that's the only possible solution parent would be offering?

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[EmperorOfCanada]

Actually that was exactly my meaning society needs to be restructured. I don't believe in boring tax and spend but I would love to see taxes that are based upon levels of employment and ratio of wages and profits. So if you have say a grocery chain that eliminates most of their employees and replaces them with robots resulting in massive profits; their income taxes on both profits and management salaries should approach 100%. This would then appeal to the greed of the shareholders and management to not only hire more people but to pay them well. Most companies would not just hire people and have them stand around. They would look to put them to effective work. This might even involve horrible things like providing on the job training and education.

This is basic game theory. Each company will act in their best interests by reducing costs which will generally mean more and more technological replacement of human employees. But this does not actually work out in the end if there is mass unemployment. Tax and spend just results in insane Soviet inefficiencies. Banning technology is also just stupid as it just drive up the cost of living. The only thing left is to insent companies to hire more humans. Taxes are an excellent way to do just that. Finding the right balance generally will be hard but a simple formula would be to base it somewhat on the unemployment rate. If you are running a fantastically profitable company in an area with 15% unemployment then whoosh, up go your taxes. If you in an area with 2% unemployment then the tax incentive can be somewhat withdrawn. You have to be careful that companies don't just all move somewhere expensive to live that has a low unemployment rate so much would just be based upon national rates combined with the range of their products. So a locally owned store would be more regional while Apple would be more national.

Any country that gets this right will flourish in the mid to late 21st century. Any country that doesn't will end up in a Game Theory Nash Equilibrium where a tiny number of heavily automated companies are fighting over the few employed customers remaining in their country while nearly non-stop civil unrest drives up their security costs. Plus they will end up paying high taxes as the few remaining taxpayers anyway.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[AK Marc]

I can't wait until they break the medallion system. Most of them are fixed-numbers. That means the population doubles, and taxis don't. If they issue more medallions, the current holders sue (and win) because it's a "taking".

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[AK Marc]

The poor in most industrialized countries do better than American poor.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[rossz]

Yep. The new system is pretty damn good. The app is great. Here's a basic step through.

1. Press "taxi" icon
2. Press "Send cab"
3. Press "Now" (or enter a time)
4. It asks "at your currently location?" (uses your phones gps)
5. Press "Yes"
6. I think it asks for destination, but I don't remember the details.
7. Responds with "Cab in route. Approximate arrival time is 4 minutes 33 seconds"
8. A few minutes later your phone buzzes and a message shows, "Your cab has arrived".

It doesn't get any simpler than that. The taxi drivers love it (for the reasons you stated). The riders love it because it's faster and easier than the old phone system. The dispatchers hate it because they can no longer skim the drivers' fares. In NYC, I'm sure the cab companies skim from the dispatchers. The thing is, the cab companies probably see increased profits, except it will all be "on the books". The entire taxi infrastructure of NYC is rotten to the core (pun intended). A side note. The cab companies in NYC have hired lobbyists to get Washington, DC to implement a NYC medallion system. The tax drivers are fighting that tooth and nail.

My roommate could have gotten in on the ground floor of the company that makes this system, but he turned it down (he's still kicking himself over that).

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[Anonymous Coward]

Meaning, all those people replaced by robots still won't have a job or be spending money

...Which would result in total economic collapse.

When you have unemployment above 25%, everything starts to fall apart alarming quickly.

but you want to be sure that the people running the companies that actually produce stuff are also kept poor so nobody resents them

The classic "I am an island and am in no dependent on a functioning society around me, fuck everyone" attitude. It's a nice thought if you're a misanthrope but has no basis in reality. Without people to buy your shit, you can't sell anything, and since no one other than you has any money, nobody other than the government will accept money as valid currency [since no one has any, they'll have to revert to barter to survive and you can't eat paper].

That will definitely be an incentive for them to keep bothering.

That matters why? Who cares, really?

Supply-Demand economics don't stop functioning practically ever, if you shut up shop in protest so you can sit around and sneer at everyone else instead then someone with more business sense than you will open up in your place. If not, then what you provided probably wasn't all that important to begin with.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[ultranova]

Meaning, all those people replaced by robots still won't have a job or be spending money, but you want to be sure that the people running the companies that actually produce stuff are also kept poor so nobody resents them.

Well, obviously. Production stays the same, as does population, but there's no way to rearrange economy so people can still get goods once the work for pay -model breaks down. Clearly, things like having the society own the automated factories and distribute production quota to its citizens is out of the question. Instead, products will sit on the warehouses gathering dust and people who need them sit outside and do without because the most important thing is to ensure no one gets anything they didn't earn with their sweat, tears and blood - unless they're an investor, in which case it's okay to substitute other people's sweat for your own.

That will definitely be an incentive for them to keep bothering.

That doesn't really matter to people who can't afford to buy their products, now does it? Nor to even those who do, since they can eventually be replaced by computer algorithms as well.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[Fjandr]

You failed to grasp the word "balance" in the above equation. Nothing was said about stripping all profit.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[nyckidd]

8. A few minutes later your phone buzzes and a message shows, "Your cab has arrived".

It doesn't get any simpler than that. The taxi drivers love it (for the reasons you stated). The riders love it because it's faster and easier than the old phone system. The dispatchers hate it because they can no longer skim the drivers' fares. In NYC, I'm sure the cab companies skim from the dispatchers. The thing is, the cab companies probably see increased profits, except it will all be "on the books".

Yes, but "on the books" works both ways. I would think that having the fares of your drivers logged on a server would probably stop some skimming that goes on at the driver level. Besides, from what I understand many drivers these days pay a base 'rental' rate for taking out a car (they rent the car from the company that owns the medallions), plus they pay for their own fuel any other incidentals. At the end of the day, driver brings the car back to company, and most don't make a whole lot after the costs of car rent and gas.

So, I don't know that the drivers would "love it", and I'm not sure the concept of dispatcher taking calls and sending drivers to locations like you'd see in smaller towns applies at all, atleast not as far as the medallion cars go. Overall, most of the resistance is about the extra logging of data across the board, as well as general reluctance to change

The cab companies in NYC have hired lobbyists to get Washington, DC to implement a NYC medallion system.

Hmmm.. the thing is, the New York system WORKED REALLY WELL for the consumer. New York cabs were metered, clearly displayed the fare information, and were pretty easily acquired just about anywhere at any hour you needed one. The laws were extremely pro-consumer, and the majority of the drivers new they were in a service industry where good service with a smile would usually net them a good tip. As a native New Yorker, I was in for a surprise when I moved to Washington, DC some 10 years ago.

If you were ever unfortunate enough to deal with the DC taxi system the way it USED to be until just a couple of years ago, now THAT was a complete cluster frak. Fares were based on convoluted zones drawn specifically in such a way that the lowest fares just so happened to coincide with travel between certain government building areas and the capitol hill area neighborhoods where the politicians lived. (..fancy that..) Then, add to that the absolutely insane allowance for drivers to pick up additional fares along the way, so you'd end up crammed in with other passengers half in your lap and snaking your way on detours to drop off these complete strangers before eventually getting to where YOU should have been 20 minutes ago. Then after all that having the driver try to swindle you because the zone system meant NO METERS.

Those drivers fought pretty hard and managed to keep meters out of the taxis for quite a long time. They were quite vigilante. At the same time, the addition of meters also came with elimination of picking up additional fares during someone elses trip. Naturally, the ones loudest in opposition were usually the most corrupt drivers on the take that equated the changes with financial loss and harder work. In the end, the drivers I've spoken to have all said how much they came to love the changes because people who would simply NOT deal with the previous taxi situation (including myself.. ) now started taking taxis because they knew they would be charged fairly, and wouldn't have to squeeze in so 6 more people going to three different locations could fit in the car. So there were MORE customers, who were getting better service and thus TIPPING for a change

HMMM... I read TFA, but having just gone back to it and then followed the linkage along to the ACTUAL story, I really want to kick myself now for having anything to do with discussion of something that originated in the NEW YORK F*CKING POST! UGH! I need a shower now... might as well have TMZ tag in for sloppy seconds while you're at it Slashdot... thanks!

Having wasted this amount of time already ranting on, guess I'll just click that Submit button and move on with my regularly scheduled life..

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[aaarrrgggh]

In my neighborhood on the opposite coast, a lot of the cabbies are switching to the limo program because hailing a cab is as easy as using your smartphone now, and that is the only limitation for the limos-- they can't pick up a passenger on the street.

I imagine Bloomberg has something like that in mind.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[MysteriousPreacher]

My city saw similar issues with are taxi cabs. Far too few, which meant at peak times the taxi cab offices simply gave up answering their telegraphs - they had enough work anyway to become very rich indeed, leaving consumers with a barely functional service. De-regulation saw an increase in cars, meaning now I barely have to wait for conveyance to the club for a good brandy.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[Maxo-Texas]

When robots work as well as humans (and they do in an increasing number of places) and they are depreciatable, and the company doesn't have to pay social security, unemployment and other overhead costs, there is a very high incentive to go to robots.

It's a classic "tragedy of the commons" situation.

If one company automates to over 90%, then it makes huge profits, the remaining employees get huge salaries.

If all companies do it, then you have mass unemployment.

Retiring american, european, and chinese boomers will hide the trend in the short run (guessing up til about 2020- to 2024).

But past there, only jobs involving creative thinking will survive. And most people are not that creative nor that intelligent.

Unless we provide basic living quarters and food, you are look at brazil or worse (london where the police are currently stealing the food and shelter of the unemployed to drive them away-- but there is no where for them to be driven away to anymore so it's almost disquised genocide).

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[Shirley Marquez]

The cab companies don't need to skim from the dispatchers. They're already taking an enormous cut from the drivers. It's inherent to any place that uses a system of taxi medallions that are kept artificially scarce; all the bargaining power belongs to the medallion owners and they take most of the profits, leaving the drivers just barely enough to scrape by. Taxis should be licensed by states (yes, I said STATES, not cities and towns) so that they can be required to meet safety and honesty standards, but it should be a modest annual fee and the licenses should be issued to all takers.

Why states rather than cities? In NYC it doesn't matter as much because the city is so huge, but in other places (greater Boston for example, where I live) licensing by city causes some major system inefficiencies. Cabs aren't allowed to pick up passengers except in the city or town where they are licensed, even though fares often take them to other cities and towns. A Cambridge cab that takes a passenger to the airport in Boston has to return empty; ditto a Boston cab that takes a passenger from the airport to Cambridge. Shifting to statewide taxi licensing would eliminate that inefficiency, saving time, money, and fossil fuel consumption.

As for NYC standardizing on a vehicle with no hybrid option, that's just stupid. Urban cabs are an ideal use case for hybrids, because nearly all of their driving is on congested city streets in stop-and-go traffic. Hybrids typically deliver DOUBLE the gas mileage of non-hybrids in a taxi. Taxis will also be an excellent use for full electric vehicles once cars with sufficient range and battery lifetime are available.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[Pseudonym Authority]

Clearly, things like having the society own the automated factories and distribute production quota to its citizens is out of the question.

Obviously, that would be evil socialism.

Oh wait, were you being facetious? We'll see what the police have to say about this.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[EmperorOfCanada]

This comment sounds like paranoid ravings except that you are 100% correct. I don't want you to be correct, and I hope another way is found. But my simple quest is to identify which countries are going to get this right and move to one of them.

The flip side of what you are saying is that robots could be the basis of a near utopia.

But keep in mind that one of the horrible institutions that will become robotized (and thus a cheap option) is policing and prisons. So when people are losing their minds and rioting they can be neatly rounded up and kept away from the few remaining employed people.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[Maxo-Texas]

Yea. I'm hoping I'm off on the time scale.

Be nice for it to happen in 30 years (2040ish) since I'm fairly likely to be dead by then.

It's going to be hard to move to other countries unless you have significant resources.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[TapeCutter]

In Oz, the number plate is the "medallion", they are limited but privately traded and currently worth around $500k per cab, people who have them will never want to change the limit. Dispatch was a quasi-authority, the board was composed of govt reps and private operators, they basically set prices, etc, they don't specify the make of car but here in Melbourne it must be yellow. The flagfall fee was supposedly to pay for bookings via the dispatch center. Limo's work the same here, they must be pre-booked. All this was 25yrs ago, dispatch technology has changed a lot since then, good drivers (cab or limo) seem to rely more on their mobile phone than their radio these days.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[quarterbuck]

Livery cars are not really private cars- at least they are required to have commercial insurance and license - but yes they are Medallion less and are taxis.
They are more like "Call Taxi" of some other countries. Livery Cabs cannot be painted Yellow (so that no one confuses them for taxis) and cannot pick people up from Streets - only by prior appointment/call.
Confusingly enough New Yorkers and most East Coasters also refer to Livery Cabs, Shared Vans and Limousines as "Limo".Even the locals can only tell these usages apart by context.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[MightyYar]

Your logic is OK, but I think there is a bright spot: history. This isn't the first time we've had massive societal change as a result of improved productivity. Agriculture meant we could no longer roam around and gather our food. Then improved agriculture made us more urban as subsistence farmers became food producers. Then the industrial revolution and mechanized farming virtually eliminated farming as an occupation.

If you went to someone 300 years ago and told them that only 1% of the population would be farming, they would not have conceived how society could endure. I think we are at that point now. We've long had all of our basic needs met mostly by machines and now we are moving on to having our luxuries provided as well. I don't think the transition will be very friendly to a certain demographic, but at the end of the day I think people will end up doing something productive with their time.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[kaatochacha]

The has to be some consumption, or production cannot be financed. Or am I missing something here?
If I make cars, and nobody buys cars, then I have no income to invest in supplies for making more cards.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[Maxo-Texas]

That's the problem.

"something productive"

If you say, "enjoy lifes of leisure, playing games"-- that's possible.

If it has monetary value and isn't creative, then it can be automated at lower cost than a human can perform the activity.

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[Maxo-Texas]

Interesting fairly balanced, even skeptical article on the topic here:

http://singularityhub.com/2013/05/15/moshe-vardi-robots-could-put-humans-out-of-work-by-2045/

Re:Uber is not going to destroy NYC taxi

[MightyYar]

It also has to be fairly repetitive. That might fit in with your "creative" category. Call me skeptical, but when my front door trim rots out, I'm pretty sure there will always* be a human involved in the replacement process.

* always = my lifetime :)

Note to self...

[Black Parrot]

Don't piss off the rich guy.

Re:Note to self...

[tmosley]

Actually, it should be "don't piss off the powerful fascist".

But really, those are exactly the kind of people we should be pissing off, if not hanging them in the streets. Bloomberg is the very epitome of the corrupt merger of government and corporate power. He wants to dictate what everyone does, and will stop at NOTHING to do it.

Re:Note to self...

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Hear hear. I live in the Chicago area, and the amount of money he's pouring into ads and orginazations (particularly gun-outlawing) promoting his Nazi/nanny state agenda is breathtaking. Last election cycle his PAC was all over the airwaves, telling massive lies both pro and con to promote their selected candidates. Bloomberg won't rest until he controls every aspect of our lives, including the size of our soft-drink cups.

Re:Note to self...

[GodfatherofSoul]

Honestly, I don't think Bloomberg himself really believes in the BS he's pushing. But, he is a HUGE attention whore and he desperately wants to be President. He's found his PR niche where he knows exactly how to get his name in the papers. So, he just keeps dropping these nanny state jewels every few months. I'd feel that he was sincere if he came at it with a sound comprehensive plan rather than a drip-drip-drip of "he's what our strong, dear determined Leader is going to do for us today" edicts.

Re:Note to self...

[Patch86]

I find it depressing that the word "fascist" is being used without irony for someone who passed a law about soda cup size. Have we forgotten, perhaps, what genuine fascists are like? It's the political equivalent of someone with a runny nose complaining that they have flu...

Re:Note to self...

[Patch86]

You were the third person to use the comparison in this thread (see tmosley and NoNonAlphaCharsHere). Apparently soda-cup-size laws are an emotive topic in the states.

There's something wrong when people use the word "fascist" to refer to someone who's political ideology appears to be nannyish meddling and self-aggrandisement, while movements with genuine elements of fascism (such as the Tea Party- although it depends which part of the movement you're looking at) get passed off as "conservative" (another much abused phrase).

Re:Note to self...

[sumdumass]

There is a lot wrong, but it is with the political ideology that thinks it can manage my freedoms. Government is in no position to do so. As I said, the term fascist was used as an insult.

BTW, what parts of the tea party do you consider fascism? I'm interested to hear about this. I think it's going to be a laugh when you put it down in words.

Re:Note to self...

[Patch86]

Easy tiger. It's a complicated subject. Complicated by the fact that a) the Tea Party movement is disunited on many policy points, and b) fascism itself has always been poorly defined. But taking those two things into account, there is still much overlap.

Let's start with the easy bit. Ultra-nationalism for one. Anti-immigration for two. Those two on their own do not fascism make, but they're a start.

Foreign policy is the first tricky area. Arguably there are two camps- the Ron Paul school of thought and the Sarah Palin school of thought. The Ron Paul one is very much non-fascist- the idea that militarism is an extension of Big Government and should be resisted. The Palin one is about spreading American ideology through power projection (look up "American Exceptionalism" for a broader discussion). A fairly key part of fascism is based around the eradication of rival ideologies through force of arms in order to promote unity- the basic ideological justification for Nazi Germany's invasions.

By far the trickiest talking point is around the concept of "small government" itself. There are two basic schools of thought on this; there's free market anarchism, espoused to a greater or lesser extent by Paulite school of Tea Partyism. This, again, is definitely not fascist- fascism historically disliked that concept as being against the societal good. However the politics to come out of the likes of the Koch brothers is more akin to Corporate Syndicalism- the idea that society should be run by and for the experts in each societal sector, with only a veneer of criminal law to keep the syndicates on the party line. That was a key (arguably THE key) to 20th century fascism (especially Italian fascism).

Fascism historically defined itself as an "anti-communist" movement. Part of this also manifested as an anti-intellectual standpoint (that is, distrust of academia and the "intellectual class", as opposed to being "anti-intelligence" or anything broader), as well as a complete loathing of the trade union labour movement. All three of these are met by the Tea Party- "socialist" is still seen as something practically demonic by Tea Party critics, unions are considered anathema (this is related to the Corporate Syndicalism outlined above), and a rejection of scientific institutions (especially around climate studies) as being politicised and left-wing-biased all fit this template.

It's not a perfect fit, and you need to be selective as to what parts you're looking at (as I stated originally), but the similarities are far easier to spot there than it is in soda-cup laws or taxicab vehicle choices.

Re:Note to self...

[hawk]

The taxi cartel and a billionaire . . .

You may have misidentified the underdog on this one.

hawk

Re:Note to self...

[Fjandr]

If a universal ban worked I would be for it. It won't though.

Also, the majority of firearm owners aren't trying to solve societal problems with them, and most firearm uses don't include a trigger pull.

Your continued use of the word insane to cover a vast number of people with widely disparate views says more bout you than those at whom you aim your words. They are as bad as right-wing extremists. Those who are not willing to listen and engage civilly are all part of the problem.

Re:Note to self...

[tmosley]

It literally costs a million dollars to get a medallion allowing you to run a taxi in NYC. 40 years ago you could start your own taxi service with nothing but a vehicle with a sign on it. Today it is simply IMPOSSIBLE. This is the result of fascism, and it WILL destroy our economy.

Re:Note to self...

[sumdumass]

So in other words, nothing particular but you want to make the association.

You also got a few things wrong. I have never met a tea party identifier who was anti-immigration. I have never seen a platform that was anti-immigration passed among people claiming to be in the tea party. I have however seen anti-illegal immigration stances which is distinctly different then immigration.

Also, I have never seen American Exceptional-ism taken as a policy of projection through force. I've seen it intrude into other areas where force was needed or used though. That would make it ancillary verses policy projection though. This sort of makes your concept of "the eradication of rival ideologies through force of arms in order to promote unity a careless association" a little less then a casual acquaintance. At least as far as I can see with the tea party.

As for your comment on anti-intellectual stands. I think you are confusing opinion with fact and that is a very unintellectual problem. Opinions about facts do not make facts itself and most of what you see (if not all) is the rejection of political opinion concerning facts. It does not make the facts wrong or the opposing opinion wrong and it does not make the opinions about facts right. When scientific institutions start expressing political opinions, opposition of those opinions is not a rejection of scientific institutions either (that line of thought is very unscientific to boot).

As for the soda cup sizes, I said the comment was meant as an insult. You can creatively construe the tea party as fascists, but you need a lot of creativity to do so. A lot more than what is needed to call an idiot wanting to nanny state state your health and ruin established city services because they found a legal reason to oppose your will- a fascist- even if just as an insult.

Re:Unqualified for office

[jcr]

He was rich before he ran for office. The "nanny state" thing is a hobby for him.

-jcr

Re:Unqualified for office

[king neckbeard]

I wouldn't say it's communism. It's more cronyism or nepotism.

Bloomberg is a spoiled brat

[pongo000]

Here's a man with so much obscene money than he has a right to, and thinks he can buy what he wants if he can't get it any other way. First it's gun control, then it's a police state, and now it's his own taxi monopoly (along with whatever kickback he and his cronies are getting from this backroom deal). Bloomberg is a plague on society, a grown man who is prone to throwing tantrums when he doesn't get his way, and enough money in his pocket to crush anyone that stands in his way.

I can't wait until the feds get enough hair on their balls to take him down. Anyone with that much money is bound to have broken some law, somewhere, sometime.

Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat

[pongo000]

That first sentence should have read "such an obscene amount of money." Just to be clear that I'm not ranting about people with money, or money in general, but those like Bloomberg with an obscene amounts of money who think because of it they are entitled to what they want when they want it.

Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat

[Required Snark]

So people with "an obscene amount of money" and a political agenda who think "they are entitled to what they want when they want it" are "a plague on society".

Does that apply equally to the Koch brothers and their NRA connected group ALEC?

The Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, which brings together corporate lobbyists and Republican state legislators to write “model” legislation to introduce in Republican-controlled states on behalf of the corporations, has been doing everything they can to help out the gun industry.

As reported by Alex Kane on AlterNet, they include:

Guns on campus

Doing away with waiting periods to buy guns

More “Stand Your Ground” laws like the one ALEC got passed in Florida

No borders to firearm movement between states

Annulling local gun-control regulations

Putting in jail government officials who take away people’s guns in emergencies

Promoting more semi-automatic weapons like those used by the Newtown killer

Yes, the Feds should go after the Kochs because "Anyone with that much money is bound to have broken some law, somewhere, sometime."

How does that shoe feel now that it's on your foot? Uncomfortable?

Just to make thing crystal clear, you are as dumb as you sound.

Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat

[bill_mcgonigle]

I can't wait until the feds get enough hair on their balls to take him down. Anyone with that much money is bound to have broken some law, somewhere, sometime.

The entire problem with Bloomberg isn't just that he's really bad at solving problems, it's because there's too much government power and he just happens to be the one wielding it at the moment.

Wishing for revenge from more government power is just the kind of thinking that perpetuates the system that makes Bloomberg a problem.

Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat

[bill_mcgonigle]

just wait til he runs for _president_

Maybe I should just start selling the armbands to his supporters now, to get an early start in the market.

Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that apply equally to the Koch brothers and their NRA connected group ALEC?

Yes?

How does that shoe feel now that it's on your foot?

How did you fit so many shoes into your rectum?

Only a man with an entire Payless of shoes shoved up his ass could be demented enough to think that dislike of gross corruption is party driven.

Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat

[PhamNguyen]

Yes, you are so much braver cheering Bloomberg on from the sidelines.

Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat

[Kreigaffe]

Except Bloomberg actually HAS broken the law, he headed up an illegal gun-running operation (he called it an undercover sting, but as far as I am aware you really can't form up a private law enforcement club and wantonly break laws just because you say it's OK to do). Never been charged or arrested, never will.

What laws have the Kochs demonstrably violated?

Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat

[Rockoon]

Only a man with an entire Payless of shoes shoved up his ass could be demented enough to think that dislike of gross corruption is party driven.

Thats who you are talking to, though, He is party-driven rather than ethics-driven.

Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat

[EmperorArthur]

I know where he can get some good PR people. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/

Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat

[sesshomaru]

What laws have the Kochs demonstrably violated?

Trading with Iran.

For starters, and there's more if you look.

They should be swinging from lampposts right next to the one Bloomberg is swinging from, maybe across from the ones Jamie Dimon and Don Blankenship are strung up from.

The main problems will be really fat crows and running out of lamp posts.

Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat

[dbIII]

How about "enough money that they think they should have nothing in their way like an English King before Magna Carta"? I think that's the problem a lot of people have with those that seem to act as if their wealth exempts them from the law.

Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat

[Livius]

Does that apply equally to the Koch brothers and their NRA connected group ALEC?

Yes. Obviously.

Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat

[ganjadude]

yes it does. It also goes for the George soros' the clintons, the gores etc..

Re:Bloomberg is a spoiled brat

[Khyber]

"You lot need to watch your backs, we are planning on giving the state back to Estados Unidos Mexicanos to try and keep the rest of the republic intact. "

Shows how stupid you are. That would trigger an instant economic collapse, you fucking moron, and it wouldn't be California that'd be hurting.

Re:Unqualified for office

[MightyYar]

He was a billionaire before he was mayor.

There's an easier way to bypass the issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the City government shouldn't concern itself with mandating an exact model of vehicle to be used by all taxi companies.

Re:There's an easier way to bypass the issue.

[Fjandr]

That's not the NY way.

No no, not a cab hailing service...

[Areyoukiddingme]

Obviously Bloomberg is going to fund the installation of a Personal Rapid Transit system with 100% coverage of the metro area, plus extensions to commuter parking lots upstate and in New Jersey. PRT proponents rejoice! Bloomberg will prove once and for all that PRT works!

Or...

Bloomberg is an entitled asshole rich kid who can vent whenever he wants because he's too rich for anybody around him to tell him to STFU.

Gee. I wonder which is more likely...

Re:No no, not a cab hailing service...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloomberg is not a "rich kid". Whatever you think of him or his politics, he's a self-made man and judging by the places he lived growing up, had a middle-class upbringing.

Oh if only there were a free market in taxis

[Laxori666]

It would be so much better. More taxis, cheaper rates, being able to order taxis from your iPhones... but given that the going rate to buy a medallion is over a million dollars nowadays (based on my convo w/ a taxi driver who had done just that recently), there's a ton of interest against that. If only, if only.

Re:Oh if only there were a free market in taxis

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt any taxi drivers have owned their own medallion in nyc in quite a long time. Why would you drive your own taxi when you can rent it out to other drivers and make a mint.

Re:Oh if only there were a free market in taxis

[EmperorArthur]

What is this free market that you speak of? Who would give the bribes, I mean campaign donations, in a free market. That's what regulation is for after all. A company first pays to not be regulated, then they pay to be regulated in a way that only hurts startups or their competitors. Don't you know how the system works?

Re:Oh if only there were a free market in taxis

[girlinatrainingbra]

I thought that the taxi regulations and the anti-"gypsy"-taxi laws were so that out-of-town tourists don't get ripped off so frequently that they decide to stop visiting thereby dropping your tourist tax dollars: transportation, hotel taxes, restaurant visits, shamu - and - seaworld - and - the old village district (mission area) [that probably only applies to san diego and such). But the tourist market is large in NY, just as in chicago, SF, orlando, atlanta, etc. So the taxis do need to be regulated.

Do a quick search for "why are taxis regulated?" on your favorite engine and come up with a grab-bag of hooror stories about taxi drivers taking advantage of customers. You can also watch the movie The Freshman with Marlon Brando and SJP's husband, Ferris Bueller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab :

Seattle re-regulated in 1984, reinstating a restriction on taxicab licenses and fare controls.

Re:Oh if only there were a free market in taxis

[Darinbob]

Not really sure why the mayor wanted such a lousy automobile to be the replacement. Even if he has stock in Nissan he could find a better vehicle.

Re:Oh if only there were a free market in taxis

[Dereck1701]

What does any of that have to do with designating an "official" (see required) taxi cab vehicle? Regulation, where required, can definitely help to keep a profession reputable. But in this case it seems to be far more about either pointless control or kickbacks from a government enforced monopoly.

Re:Oh if only there were a free market in taxis

[Laxori666]

Well, having unregulated taxis wouldn't make people stop coming to new york. The only way that would happen is if it was so bad that everybody knew about it. But if everyone knows it happens then they can look up what the market price should be and only hire the more legitimate businesses that offer rides at that price. In the meantime everybody (tourists & residents alike) suffers from poorer quality taxi service.

Re:Oh if only there were a free market in taxis

[bluegutang]

If medallions are selling for $1M a piece, is it too much ask a medallion owner to pay $30k extra for a vehicle that pollutes the city less with noise and emissions?

Re:Oh if only there were a free market in taxis

[pla]

Do a quick search for "why are taxis regulated?" on your favorite engine and come up with a grab-bag of hooror stories about taxi drivers taking advantage of customers

A city/state has an obvious interest in making sure their drivers and cars count as safe, and in occasionally auditing the driver's choice of routes to make sure they don't take people on a 20 mile trip to get one block away. And that ends any legitimate regulation the government imposes.

Charging a million bucks for a medallion, telling the industry what kind of cars they can drive, the extortionate "airport" surcharge - These all need to end yesterday. I find it nothing short of disgusting that getting around the crown jewel of capitalism, NYC, amounts to a perfect lesson in crony fascism.

That said - Bloomberg, while arguably a convictable felon, actually has nothing to do with this situation. This story goes back long, long before NY's Little Nero took office, and reeks more of the mob than of overzealous local government.

Re:Oh if only there were a free market in taxis

[PPH]

Seattle re-regulated in 1984, reinstating a restriction on taxicab licenses and fare controls.

And now Seattle is full of less regulated 'Car Services'. Not cabs in that they can't park at taxi stands. But you can call one for a pickup at any other point.

Its my understanding that these are no allowed in NYC. Allowing them and letting them use Uber or other business models in competition with medallion cabs might be a good idea.

Re:Oh if only there were a free market in taxis

[squiggleslash]

It's a method of regulation. See also driver's licenses. We don't pass laws saying "Anyone can drive, but these rules are the ones you stick to", we say "Here is something that makes you a driver. This is the process needed to get it. The difficulty means that you should at least, upon getting it, be vaguely aware of the rules of the road, and BTW, if you fuck up, we take this away from you."

The same logic, for the most part, applies to designating taxis official. Want to drive in a cab that's yellow and has a checkered band around it? Get the medallion - and make sure you're aware of all the things you could do that would result in that medallion being lost. Expect a quick trip to jail if someone finds you driving around in a yellow cab without in some way, renting or owning, being in possession of one.

The mistake was to pander to environmentalists.

[sethstorm]

Nothing wrong from taking a page from the LEO sales and having Chrysler make a taxi (given they're the only manufacturer left that's willing to make American form factor cars these days).

Then again, had Ford decided to not listen to Al Gore by killing all their American lineup (including the Crown Vic) we wouldnt have this problem.

Re:The mistake was to pander to environmentalists.

[bogjobber]

What? What did killing the Crown Vic have to do with Al Gore? Ford still makes a police vehicle, just based on the Taurus chassis instead of the 30+ year old Panther.

Seeing as how Chrysler had to be bailed out and sold to Fiat while Ford successfully weathered the recession and just posted their highest profit since the 90s, I'm sure they will continue to ignore your advice.

Unqualified as a human being

[fnj]

Yes, Bloomberg is an asshole, and no, he's not the only one. But your garden variety asshole is not necessarily in a position of having more power than god. Assholes with billions of dollars and assholes who are politicians are making their assholism a problem for other people. And assholes with billions of dollars AND political power are making their assholism a problem for EVERYBODY.

The asshole police should have beaten this scum black and blue silly and locked him away forever a LOOONG time ago. Oh wait ... there are no asshole police ...

Re:Unqualified as a human being

[TapeCutter]

there are no asshole police

Reason being, everybody is somebody else's asshole.

Re:Unqualified for office

[deblau]

The phrase is "crony capitalism". To be vociferously distinguished from "free-market capitalism", which it subverts.

Re:Ambivalent

[mrbester]

A 2 litre engined vehicle that only manages 24mpg? It's shocking how inefficient US cars are compared to those in Europe. Even Cosworth engined RS Ford Escorts did better over 20 years ago. The fact that it is a Nissan makes it even more surprising.

Mayor Bloomberg's latest FAIL...

[RickChandler]

Being from Tennessee, I don't see much difference between Bloomberg and out set of politicos. All immediately circumspect out of the gate. The only way to rid the landscape of losers and abusers of the public trust (like Bloomberg) is through organizations like Change.org and social awareness. Bloomberg is just one more petty tyrant. If you want him out, get it done. I used to piss and moan and bitch about everything that is wrong in our country. That's fine as far as it goes. If I complain and watch from the sidelines, nothing gets done. Personally, I'm done with that method of survival. :)

Height wars

[Mandrel]

Minivan taxis? More cars that sedans can't see past. Expect more rear-enders.

Re:Height wars

[wadeal]

Then keep 2 seconds behind? They do have break lights..

Re:Height wars

[chrismcb]

What does the height of the car in front of you have to do with rear-enders? I drive a pretty small car, and as much as I hate driving among the giants, I've NEVER had a problem with rear enders... cause I pay attention to the car in front of me. Not the car in front of the car in front of me.
Besides, who else drives in Manhattan but taxis, town cars, and delivery trucks?

Re:Height wars

[Mandrel]

Then keep 2 seconds behind?

A lot of people don't do this.

Re:Height wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Then keep 2 seconds behind? They do have break lights..

I take it you've never driven in NYC.

Re:Height wars

[AK Marc]

Doesn't matter. For any given distance, you are less safe behind a car you can't see through.

Re:Height wars

[Captain Hook]

which is a terrible indictment of US vehicle training

Re:Height wars

[Cederic]

On a motorway I can drive for a hundred miles without braking. I do this while driving faster than most of the people on the road.

It's possible because I'm not watching the car in front of me. I'm watching the cars a quarter of a mile down the road, the cars merging onto the road, the lorries on the slower lanes and the cars that might want to overtake them.

The car in front? It's almost fucking irrelevant. Pay attention only to that car and you'll have to brake every time he does, you'll have far worse fuel economy and you're far more likely to have an accident.

In city driving you do need to give more attention to the vehicle in front, but full awareness of your surroundings - including the cars in front - is really important.

Re:Height wars

[superwiz]

Not going to happen in NYC traffic. If there is more than 2 car lengths between you and the car in front of you, someone will cut in pretty quickly.

Re:Height wars

[joew]

Most states now recommend a 3 second following distance

Re:Height wars

[wadeal]

Oh... Well in that case because you're already less safe just sit right up their ass.. Can't get any more unsafe RIGHT?

Bloomberg

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually he is doing what needs to be done. That is upgrading the Taxi system equipment and taking the corrupt owners to task. Even better, introduce other methods of moving people about in that overcrowded city. How much fuel is wasted by slow moving, congested, low efficiency transportation?
Mankind has made it abundantly clear it must have guidance lest it fall on it's ass repeatedly.

Re:Bloomberg

[tompaulco]

How much fuel is wasted by slow moving, congested, low efficiency transportation?
I guess we will find out if they put these into place. The NV200 gets the same gas mileage on the highway as a Crown Vic, and only outperforms it in city driving, according to EPA. However, the EPA does not consider passengers. A Crown Vic with two passengers will barely see a dent it's mileage, while the undersized 4 cylinder in the NV200 is likely to see a 10% or more drop in it's mileage. As far as the slow moving comment, which is more likely to be slow? A 131 HP 4 cylinder weighing 3800 pounds with passengers, or a 239 HP V8 weighing 4700 with passengers?

Re:Bloomberg

[AK Marc]

What do you have against small 4-cylinder car?

Re:Bloomberg

[tompaulco]

What do you have against small 4-cylinder car?

Ditto. Don't knock it until you've tried this.

You guys don't know the half of it. I used to own a 4 cylinder Lotus Esprit. But the Esprit has about the same horsepower as the V8 Crown Vic and weighs much less than the Nissan NV200. My whole point is that you can't put an anemic 4 cylinder in a heavy van intended to carry heavy passengers and expect it to perform well. It's not a question of 4 cylinder versus V8. I'm not fan of throwing more block at something just because. I find it very telling that Lotus manages to get about the same performance out of a 4 cylinder as Ford gets out of a 5.0 V8.

Re:Bloomberg

[AK Marc]

The US manages to screw it up. I've had rentals outside the US with underpowered engines. They still worked fine, and the economy didn't take the hit you imply when we loaded the car up with people and gear. The difference is that when you drive the underpowered hard, it's much more whiny. But economy improves with the increase of throttle (throttle-back lowers economy, one reason they should use diesels for cabs and police cars, they spend so much time idling and diesel, without a throttle, does significantly better at idle economy). So the decrease of economy from higher revs is offset from the increase in economy from the throttle being less restricted.

Or course, once gasoline direct injection and 14:1 compression ratios are common in gasoline cars, that will decrease, but those that do things like now that optimize for power, not economy.

Why does this problem exist in the first place

[Dereck1701]

What I don't understand is why there appears to be some monolithic entity designating the specific model of taxi cab for the entire city. Shouldn't each taxi company/cab owner be able to choose what car(s)/van(s) they want to use? Besides designating a paint scheme and setting some requirements (display of medallion, cleanliness of cab, etc) the city should butt out. It sounds to me like there is a lot of shady dealings & backdoor hand shaking going on.

Re:Why does this problem exist in the first place

[Patch86]

There are a few (theoretical) good reasons. Accessibility for disabled people for one- it'd be no good if 70% of the fleet were low-riding luxury sedans (note, in my jurisdiction there is no mandated vehicle, and this is a real problem- most popular vehicles are VW Passats (plus Skoda/Seat variants), Mercedes E Classes and Vauxhaul Vectras- none are particularly disability friendly). Another would be safety. A third would be "image"- fleets of similar-looking taxis are an iconic part of NYC mythology (and ditto other cities- think of the London Hackney Carriages). Also there's air quality- not a minor thing in cities where cabs make up a significant part of the traffic (like down town NYC).

That said, I can't see any of that being applied here. It looks like Bloomberg has just picked a car at random. Even assuming there are shady reasons for him picking Nissan, it's not like Nissan don't make plenty of other vehicles to choose from...

Re:Why does this problem exist in the first place

[mapuche]

I was always amazed on how well organized are in the US. Taxi drivers here in Mexico City are free to choose watever car model they want to for a taxi, as long as they follow the graphic scheme and colors. Then in the 80's we ended with 90% of the taxis being two-door VW beetles. Aside from being cheap and not very cosy, they were a mortal trap, because there was/is a chance you hop on a VW and you get an express kidnapping, But VW Beetle were cheap, right?

Maybe major Bloomberg needs to be more transparent on why that specific model of car won the bidding.

 

Re:Unqualified for office

[Anonymous Coward]

He was a billionaire before he was mayor.

And here I thought it was the job that made him an arrogant prick.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Ambivalent

[The Grim Reefer]

A 2 litre engined vehicle that only manages 24mpg? It's shocking how inefficient US cars are compared to those in Europe. Even Cosworth engined RS Ford Escorts did better over 20 years ago. The fact that it is a Nissan makes it even more surprising.

That was 24 mpg combined. I didn't read the article. But if they tested in actual NYC cab conditions, then I'm not surprised. Actually, it's better than I would have guessed. Manufacturers mpg numbers are pretty dicey to begin with. NYC roads are jokingly refereed to as "driving on the moon". These cabs are also typically loaded with at least two people. mpg ratings are taken with just a driver. Driving in Manhattan is much more stop and go than normal city mpg tests. Cab drivers also tend to be a lot less careful about using the gas pedal.

That being said, if the 24 mpg rating was not calculated from actual NYC driving, it is pretty bad. I currently have one 10 and one 12 year old car, both with V8 engines that get close to that(combined). One is a sports car and I don't beat it, but I also don't baby it.

Re:Ambivalent

[MBGMorden]

On thing to keep in mind when comparing miles per "gallon" - the UK when it used gallons used the Imperial gallon, which is larger than the US gallon (4.55L vs 3.78L, respectively). A car that gets 24 miles per US gallon would get nearly 29 miles per Imperial gallon.

Police interceptors driving tourists

[taj]

I've not got a strong opinion about Bloomberg but there is something wrong with the taxi business and its close relationship to retiring police cars. Other than some hardened suspension components, there is nothing about a police car that makes a good cab vehicle.

Re:Police interceptors driving tourists

[toddestan]

Why not? Besides being durable, they are relatively roomy, easy to maintain, and repair, readily available, and most importantly cheap.

Re:Unqualified for office

[Guy Harris]

Also, how in the world does an 'elected public servant' get into the billionaire club?

As others have noted, that reverses the timeline; he became a billionaire before he became a mayor.

Re:Ambivalent

[Guy Harris]

but thanks to California's fucked up emissions laws, diesels aren't something that can be called eco-friendly here).

They sell diesels here in California now, with the availability of low-sulfur diesel fuel.

Re:Unqualified for office

[TapeCutter]

Also, how in the world does an 'elected public servant' get into the billionaire club?

I find this AC's post psychologically fascinating. Bloomberg is one of the most famous billionaires on the planet and has been for decades. The AC's question implies he knows nothing about that but he's happy to accept the rumor and come to the firm conclusion Bloomberg is being a jerk rather than (say) reacting to one.

And please, this not a defense of Bloomberg or an attack on the AC, it's a fascination at how susceptible people are to potential propaganda (including myself).

Is it just me...

[rsilvergun]

or is there something seriously wrong with our entire economy when one guy can threaten to destroy an entire (very profitable) industry, and the threat is credible? Seriously, why do we tolerate individuals having this much power/wealth? Hell, what the *bleep* is wrong with the world when the mayor of a city can amass 27 Billion (with a 'B') dollars?

ok... done venting.

Re:Is it just me...

[chrismcb]

or is there something seriously wrong with our entire economy when one guy can threaten to destroy an entire (very profitable) industry,

No there isn't. While there may be problems with our economy, this isn't one of them. Not to mention, that it has always been like this.
Why do people have a problem with one person acquiring a fortune. Should there be a limit to how much one person can own? What happens when the person is at the limit, and is walking down the street, and is handed a dollar? SWAT comes zeroing in? Or should we fine and tax them as the close in one some arbitrary dollar amount?
Or are you just bitter that he is successful?

Re:Why a VAN instead of a sedan?

[Balthisar]

Airports. Those are people commuting between cities.

And in general, comfort. Sure, we mostly fit into small cars. I love having fun in a tricked out Fiesta. But when I spend more than 1/2 hour in a car not having fun, I want it to be spacious, like my house.

Even before all Americans were obese, we loved our space.

You're confusing Livery & Taxi, and... wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

What he's talking about isnt a routing problem, it's drivers taking a break. The yellow cabs will sit at JFK for a bit (for example) then grab a $50-100 fare. Not a bad wage, considering. Routing is more of an issue with Livery. Livery (per-arranged, dispatched car service), is not allowed to pick up a street hail. And are often not "in line" at the airports. Yellow cabs can be hailed on the street and Uber offers little value over raising one's arm in the air.

Really though, Uber's problem was that they didn't want to play by the rules. There is special insurance and licenses for both Livery and yellow cab drivers in NYC, and it works pretty damn well. This is mandated by the TLC. Uber didn't want to have to bother with all that. That's why they got the boot. They also wanted to turn yellow cabs into Livery which would pretty much fuck the system and cause all prices to skyrocket as a lot of yellow cabs would sit on their asses for an hour then grab that $100 fair from midtown, rather than putting someone in the seat as soon as it becomes vacant (and actually spending that hour working).

Also Uber's contempt for regulation and public safety laws and even their own employees has been well documented:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/nyregion/as-ubers-taxi-hailing-app-comes-to-new-york-its-legality-is-questioned.html?_r=1&
http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/17/whos-the-real-bully-uber-or-new-york/
http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/

Funny there are still Slashdotters (like you) making the same idiotic "screw those entrenched powers!" comments that are made fun of in one of the above links.

Incidentally I took 3 yellow cabs today, 2 subways, and a commuter rail. I have used them all countless times before (also Livery/car services). The NYC transportation systems work amazingly well. I have always paid a fair price and 98% of the time had nice drivers.

So what the fuck value does Uber bring to the table? Very little. For Livery and off-hours there is a use for them, and maybe for scheduling a ride, sure. But they need to play by the rules.

Finally, is the TLC a bunch of saints? Of course not -- they most certainly have some corrupt fat-cat bureaucratic interests, as do some of the Livery companies. But that's not *all* they are, they also have some good regulations.

People (especially on Slashdot) need to stop thinking in one-dimensional black and white. Government is neither good nor bad, but has elements of both. Uber wanted to cry "look at the entrenched bully!" while being just as big assholes themselves, with the added benefit of ignoring laws and charging a premium for it all.

I just hope they have improved over the last year as they are persistent assholes, that's for sure.

Re:Unqualified for office

[Dr Damage I]

One where peoples possessions are not theirs to dispose of as they see fit? Probably, but why would you want to?

Re:Why a VAN instead of a sedan?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the slow speed you will be going stuck in traffic in NYC, aerodynamics aren't going to save you much in fuel economy. That being the case, from a traffic optimization standpoint, you want to minimize the wheelbase/footprint of the vehicle. A van is actually more compact in terms of road space occupied for the same amount of internal volume.

Robots all the way down.

[Kaenneth]

with the computer both telling you how to get to your fair and the route to dropping them off

I'm imagining Google getting into the Taxi business. With no drivers at all, just per-passenger screens showing ads.

Re:Robots all the way down.

[AK Marc]

Call it Johnny Cab.

Re:Ambivalent

[tompaulco]

A 2 litre engined vehicle that only manages 24mpg?
Well, it weighs 3200 pounds, so that 4 cylinder probably has to suck down all the gas it can get just to get the thing moving. Plus it will probably die early carrying around that much weight. Not something you would want for a taxi. Also, for being all that heavy, they don't have a lot of interior room. I sure wouldn't want to give up a Crown Vic for one of these things, even though the Crown Vic obviously sucks down much more gas. Oh, wait, not it doesn't. It sucks down only 4 more tablespoons of gas per mile than the anemic four cylinder in the Nissan in the city and gets the same mileage as the NV200 on the highway.

Re:Why a VAN instead of a sedan?

[tompaulco]

Are New Yorkers(Americans in general?) so fat that they need a truck to fit in?
That is not the reason they went with a minivan. Looking at the minivan, it is quite clear that it is not going to be more roomy or comfortable than a Crown Vic. It is less capable of hauling a fat American than the Crown Vic. It is purely a political decision.

Re:Why a VAN instead of a sedan?

[tompaulco]

It is suppose to accessible to wheelchair passengers. The summery says "poor accessibility for wheelchair users" but I don't see a source for that information anywhere. If you look at pictures of the new taxi it actually looks like it would be accessible, certainly more so than the current fleet of cars.

I don't understand why we need every single car to be wheelchair accessible, when there is such a small percentage of wheelchair bound people that would need access to one. These minivans, if they are wheelchair accessible at all, are going to be an extremely tight fit and uncomfortable. Why can they not just have a small percentage of full sized vans available for wheelchair customers, and let the rest of the public ride in a comfortable, full size sedan?

But an IGT service could

[Burz]

Intelligent Grouping Transportation, AKA Taxibus...

http://www.taxibus.org.uk/index.html

People summon taxibus service with their cellphones, then a computer directs a nearby driver to a curb within a block of passengers' location... while figuring out how to accomodate more than one passenger at any given time.

Re:Why a VAN instead of a sedan?

[Shompol]

Large cars is a part of American culture. When I came to US in the 90's it was the end of an era these abominations. Since then an average car has gotten smaller, but not by much. It is a culture where everybody tries to conform, because when everybody drives a semi-truck getting accidentally squished between two of them in a small tin can can be painful. The gas price hike in recent years made small cars more appealing, and completely killed the Hummers

Re:Unqualified for office

[schwit1]

He thinks the rules do not apply to him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/nyregion/bloomberg-violates-weekend-helicopter-ban-and-will-stop.html?_r=0

He also wants to disarm the public but he gets to keep police protection.

time to invest in cab medallions

[superwiz]

If Bloomberg wants to provide technology for this industry, the customers are guaranteed to hate it. Bloomberg is in business of providing overpriced services to clients after monopolizing the data streams they need through exclusive contracts. He loses money on everything else (TV, websites, etc.) If he gets into competition with anyone, it's a good bet his competition will only look better by comparison.

Re:Ambivalent

[Kreigaffe]

the particular problem i'm referring to has to deal with the cali low-emissions vehicle standards, it might be different now tbh, but at least at one point it was impossible for a diesel to qualify due to particulate matter in exhaust (that is, even a diesel with less emissions than a gasoline engine had to meet a higher standard which was basically impossible to meet).

it may have changed though.. these days i just try to learn as little about that state as possible, it's just really a mess. the land's great, the people aren't bad, but the rest? ugh

what a dump

[stenvar]

You have more and more tech startups challenging the cesspool of corruption that New York City has been historically. I wonder how this turns out in the long run and who will win. For now, New Yorkers still seem to voting for Bloomberg...

Go with the dictionary not gut feeling

[dbIII]

It's an ideology and doesn't have to be as extreme as Mussolini or Hitler to still be fascism. It was all the rage in the US in the 1930s for instance - even Lindberg extolled it's virtues and there were enough people that thought it was a good idea that the FBI made Chaplain's life difficult because he opposed fascism.
Is Bloomberg a fascist (looking at more than one silly law about cups)? Go to the dictionary instead of thinking with your gut, or look at history and see how he compares to those 1930s US fascists.

Re:Go with the dictionary not gut feeling

[Patch86]

Fascism is about more than just authoritarian laws. Fascism is a difficult creature to define, but definitions usually involve- Corporate Syndicalism, veneration of the State (i.e. ultra-Nationalism), distrust of democracy, and a dislike of free-market capitalism. You can usually throw in eugenics and racial supremacy too, although it's debatable whether this is integral to fascism or whether it is just a function of ultra-Nationalism.

I'm not American and so not exposed to much news on the subject of Michael Bloomberg, but a quick scan of his Wikipedia entry doesn't hint at any policies that would fall into that "fascism" camp. It mostly seems like he's prone to passing "nanny state" laws, and has also been involved with some corruption allegations (something or other about gun-running). That doesn't make him a pleasant guy, but it also doesn't make him a fascist. Until he starts arguing about deporting immigrants and dissolving Wall Street, I don't think you can really put him in that philosophical bucket.

Re:Go with the dictionary not gut feeling

[dbIII]

Now that's more like it.

Re:Go with the dictionary not gut feeling

[Samantha Wright]

There's one more component I think you need to add: violence. Mark Rosenberg wrote a piece based on discussions of fascism by twentieth-century historians, and the key feature that distinguished Hitler and Mussolini from other merely despotic dictatorships was the use of scare tactics and targeted assassinations. This is why the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy is so appealing; because it would be a perfect parallel to the bombing of the Reichstag. Gestapo-style wanton thuggery is also essential—and while the DHS and TSA may be obscene and annoying, dissidents don't get rounded up easily enough for that to be valid either. It does, however, appear that perhaps there is an internal struggle within the federal government between fascists and democratists.

That having been said, Bloomberg simply doesn't have the authority to enact fascist policies, and is nowhere near patient enough to trick people into electing him into a position where he could. (Regardless of whether or not he really wants to, which seems doubtful for the reasons you and others stated.)

Re:Go with the dictionary not gut feeling

[Patch86]

Violence is an interesting part of the puzzle. I would argue that it isn't the use of violence that is key to fascism (as plenty of authoritarian regimes (and democratic regimes for that matter) have resorted to violence over the years); that it's the glorification and romanticisation of violence and "masculinity" that is a key component.

In classic 20th century fascism, this can be seen in peace time in the veneration of the military and police force. In neo-fascism, you can find it both in the actions and rhetoric of organizations who insist that they're "defending" something- such as the islamophobic English Defence League in the UK. In the states, militia groups and the like fit that part of the template too.

Re:Go with the dictionary not gut feeling

[Samantha Wright]

...Rosenfelter, not Rosenberg. Oh god, he'll kill me in my sleep.

Re:Go with the dictionary not gut feeling

[Samantha Wright]

It gets lost in translation a lot, but remember that Hitler was "defending" the working-class German. That was, after all, his core platform.

Re:Go with the dictionary not gut feeling

[khallow]

and the key feature that distinguished Hitler and Mussolini from other merely despotic dictatorships was the use of scare tactics and targeted assassinations.

So what is an example of a despotic dictatorship that doesn't indulge in the use of scare tactics and targeted assassinations? Rule by fear is the rule not the exception.

Re:Go with the dictionary not gut feeling

[khallow]

It mostly seems like he's prone to passing "nanny state" laws

Veneration of the state, distrust of democracy, and dislike of free market capitalism in one fell swoop. If the state is a necessary evil, then you wouldn't be inclined to give it the power to regulate the size of soda cups. If you trusted democracies and the people who made up the democracy, then you wouldn't be inclined to regulate how much soda they can drink at one time. You might be inclined to fund education efforts, but that's far less intrusive.

And of course, if you liked free markets, then it is likely that you'd see huge soda cups as a market innovation serving a legitimate customer need and give no more thought to it.

and has also been involved with some corruption allegations

Corporate syndicalism especially his new taxi schemes that mandate particular brands for taxis and his alleged taxi hailing service.

Sure, he isn't engaging in lethal proscription/assassination of his enemies or the other over-the-top stuff that characterizes the more famous of fascist governments, but he has all the basic characteristics of a fascist dictator. He just doesn't have the power of a fascist dictator.

Re:Go with the dictionary not gut feeling

[Samantha Wright]

More specifically, fascism creates false threats as an excuse for justifying major purges after the fact. The people are told they must look to the state for safety from said threat, and even those who see through the lies recognize that they have no choice but to comply, lest they be branded treasonous as well. (Hitler had this, and Mussolini had something a little less-remembered that Rosenfelter details; a particular event in early 1921 where numerous Communist party buildings were attacked.) This particular damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't move isn't as universal. This is covered in the article I linked.

That being said, fascism is mostly distinguished through the other traits Patch86 sort-of mentioned: concern for communal decline, cults of the state and (generally racial) purity, collaboration with the traditional elite, and popular appeal. The use of extrajudicial, retributive killings as a scare tactic is only one component of the whole.

I brought up this particular use of violence specifically because it disqualified Bloomberg's activities, and in part those of the latter Bush Administration, which is frequently compared to fascism.

Re:You're confusing Livery & Taxi, and... wron

[icebraining]

Where in your links do they mention the breaking of public safety laws or the contempt for their own employees? "Safety" doesn't even appear in your first two links, and the third only talks about it in an abstract sense, with no real connection to Uber.

So what the fuck value does Uber bring to the table? Very little.

Well, I don't even no why we have competition and consumer liberty. We should just hire you to choose a company for each sector and give them a monopoly.

But that's not *all* they are, they also have some good regulations.

Then cite all the good regulations that Uber is breaking.

Uber wanted to cry "look at the entrenched bully!" while being just as big assholes themselves, with the added benefit of ignoring laws and charging a premium for it all.

Being assholes doesn't make them wrong.

And ignoring laws is a problem, but sometimes (and that's why you need to point to specific laws being broken) it's the law that's wrong, not the law breaker.

After all, the US as a country was founded on breaking the law.

Re:Ambivalent

[Idaho]

This is why the rest of the world uses this standardized system for units of measurements.

So, I was similarly surprised that in 2013 it is apparently still possible to build *and* sell new cars that consume 10 l/100km.

Re:Ambivalent

[Idaho]

If we are talking about American engines with their usual anemic power/weight ratio's, then probably yes. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is driving hundreds of thousands of kilometers with 1.3 l engines that deliver 100 KW or so.

Also, what's with the crazy units of measurements. 4 tablespoons per mile more - is that supposed to sound like "not a lot"? In real units of measurements, that would be around 40 ml/km or 4 l/100 km more which is an absolutely huge amount - in fact, on just that difference you can drive another small or hybrid car.

Re:Why a VAN instead of a sedan?

[greg1104]

The size of the US means that we have a large number of tractor-trailers on the road along with regular cars, especially on the highways (where crashes are the most dangerous). Since decreasing the size of the average car would make a trailer accident much more dangerous, many people want to have a larger vehicle for legitimate protection reasons. Shrinking typical consumer cars doesn't change the worse-case risk that has lead toward large cars at all.

Re:Why a VAN instead of a sedan?

[greg1104]

If only some cars were capable of picking up handicapped drivers, but were otherwise more expensive to operate (i.e. higher fuel costs due to a larger size), the cab companies wouldn't use them. Also, the lack of a good city-wide dispatch system means handicapped people would have trouble finding a special cab if not all taxis could handle them. It's easily possible to provide a special type of service to those who need handicapped riding accommodations. But the profit motive in the current system means it won't happen unless it's pushed as a hard requirement. And the high price of obtaining a taxi medallion keeps all the owners very oriented toward turning a profit.

Wish he will pick opponents his size.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Wish Bloomberg will pick fights with opponents his size, like the NRA. A billionaire getting pissed off at some stupid cab company? NRA's power at the polls is a little over stated. Smart thing to do is to find something that is ripe for a fall, throw a stone at it and claim full credit for the fall.

RTFA?

[Mabhatter]

Reading the actual article seems to support the mayor's problems with crony-capitalism. It looks like the mayors office and agencies... EXCEPT THE OWNER OF MEDALLIONS were involved in selecting the vehicle. It's nice but it wasn't selected by the independent businesses that are REQUIRED TO PURCHASE IT. That's a pretty big omission from the process no matter how shiny it is.... And it doesn't even meet CURRENT LAWS for available features required in the next version.

Re:Why a VAN instead of a sedan?

[tompaulco]

If only some cars were capable of picking up handicapped drivers, but were otherwise more expensive to operate (i.e. higher fuel costs due to a larger size), the cab companies wouldn't use them. Also, the lack of a good city-wide dispatch system means handicapped people would have trouble finding a special cab if not all taxis could handle them. It's easily possible to provide a special type of service to those who need handicapped riding accommodations. But the profit motive in the current system means it won't happen unless it's pushed as a hard requirement. And the high price of obtaining a taxi medallion keeps all the owners very oriented toward turning a profit.

Oddly enough, in my city, they don't mandate what type of vehicle that cabs are allowed to run, and they run all kinds of vehicles, from midsized American cars to full size and even some foreign cars. They also run wheelchair accessible Dodge Caravans or similar. Although again, I think those are only BARELY wheelchair accessible and pale in comparison to a real van. But they do run different vehicles in the fleet and the handicapped are not left unserviced.
One company, Airport Express runs nothing but vans and minivans, mostly (probably 90%) full sized vans. The minivans are kind of cramped when trying to carry full sized people and luggage.

Re:Go after restaurants next

[mattr]

p.s. not NY state

Because it has been proven to work well

[Brannon]

London does it. Every single cab in London is wheelchair accessible, which also makes them convenient for people with strollers and luggage. It doesn't raise the cost of the car by much at all and it is a lot cheaper than having a separate "Access-A-Ride" service to shuttle disabled people around at taxpayer expense.

Where were the Crown Vics built?

[Brannon]

Not in the US...

Uber? Stop aiming so low

[bhmit1]

If you really want to "destroy an industry" then allow self driving vehicles to replace cab services. People could subscribe to a car service or pay per use to have a car when they need it. The cars would automatically recharge when not needed, automatically deploy to areas of high demand, be callable with a smart phone app and station themselves at predetermined locations for non-app users. Google can integrate voice commands, local search, maps, and their field trip app so there isn't even a need to talk to a cab driver again.

When cab drivers are finding alternate ways to get customers, you've altered an industry. When cab drivers are looking for a different career, you've destroyed an industry.

Re:Unqualified for office

[Fjandr]

That's not a third option; it perfectly describes rent control as it exists in NYC.

Try studying economics before lecturing on it

[fascismforthepeople]

you are mistaking inflation for the economy. Fake economy based on inflation (theft) and borrowing money from the productive people (debt) can seem like an economy based on consumption, but the truth is that the economy is only about production. Consumption is secondary and trivial consequence of production.

It seems your church has taught you only (a very little) about the supply side of the economy. Those of us who even took high school economics know the importance of supply and demand, and that where the two intersect is where the price point ought to be for maximum profitability. Instead you are completely ignoring the demand side of economics.

Here's a question for you - what is the value of supply when demand is zero?

Answer - the supply is then worthless. And demand is driven by consumption. Consumption is not a "trivial consequence" as you try to claim, it is actually the driving force of production. There is no reason to produce anything if it has no demand.

But of course, your church tells you otherwise, because your church wants you to believe that if you hand over what little remains of the world's power and resources that are not already in the hands of the top power holders to those top power holders that great things will happen. We have seen this experiment tried before, where power and wealth are even more severely concentrated than they are currently. This experiment is called FASCISM , and it never works out well.

In other words, as usual, you are trying to make power for the powerful and fascism for the people.

Re:Ambivalent

[mrbester]

So basically, they're putting a crap engine in a dump truck.

Re:Why a VAN instead of a sedan?

[toddestan]

The reason why "large" cars have gone the way of the dodo is because large cars have been replaced by even larger trucks and SUVs. That left the car market to those that prefer smaller vehicles. Of course, a lot of larger "mid-size" cars now are comparable to the larger cars from the 80's in dimensions and especially weight. It just doesn't seem like it since interiors haven't seemed to have really grown in size, thanks to things like huge center consoles that intrude into interior space and gunslit windows that make the whole inside seem claustrophobic.

Re:You're confusing Livery & Taxi, and... wron

[Shirley Marquez]

NYC is a special case because the density of taxis and taxi use is high enough that street hailing actually works pretty well. Until you need a taxi outside the major business or rich residential areas; then you need to call one. (Or if you're rich, your building's doorman calls one for you.) I haven't tried it, but hailing a cab on the street probably doesn't work well north of 100th St.

Here in Boston and surrounding towns, hailing a taxi on the street mostly fails unless you're in one of the places where times of high demand can be predicted (Landsdowne St at closing time, sports and concert venues when an event ends). Either you walk to one of the well populated taxi stands that exist in busy areas (big hotels, or busy tourist areas like Quincy Market or Harvard Square) or you call one. I suspect the story is much the same in most American cities.

Re:Unqualified for office

[Dr Damage I]

Because when one hands a rent controlled apartment to ones offspring, one is disposing of ones own property, not someone elses. Moron.

Leave the Crown Vics alone

[JimtownKelly]

As a former cabbie, I have undying allegiance to the Crown Vic. You simply need the horsepower, even in urban environments. The Crown Vic, or its quieter cousin the Grand Marquis, are also able to last forever if the basic maintenance intervals are taken seriously.

Re:You're confusing Livery & Taxi, and... wron

[MightyYar]

NYC is a special case because the density of taxis and taxi use is high enough that street hailing actually works pretty well.

The area where it works well is actually restricted to Manhattan. They had to start letting livery cabs pick up in Brooklyn because the yellow cab service was so poor out there. I have caught cabs in Harlem, but you are right they are a lot less frequent up there.

Re:Unqualified for office

[Fjandr]

A rent-controlled apartment is not the property of the renter.

And calling someone a moron tends to make people immediately write off your argument. Try being civil and you might be more successful in dialogues.

Re:Unqualified for office

[Dr Damage I]

A rent-controlled apartment is not the property of the renter.

[rolls eyes] That was exactly my point.

Re:Unqualified for office

[Fjandr]

Because when one hands a rent controlled apartment to ones offspring, one is disposing of ones own property, not someone elses. Moron.

Funny, I can't think of a single way to read the above to mean handing over a rent-controlled apartment is disposing of some else' property, given that it says the exact opposite. If you intended it to be sarcastic, you failed completely to make that clear.

Re:Why a VAN instead of a sedan?

[mcgrew]

That sounds logical, but is entirely incorrect. When SUVs were new their occupants suffered more deaths per mile than any other vehicle except motorcycles; they were the least safe of any 4 wheeled vehicle. Large, top-heavy vehicles roll over easily, aren't the least bit nimble, and take longer to stop.

Most fatal accidents are from "t-boning" (side impact) and head-on collisions, which happen on undivided highways with intersections, and rollovers when the occupants aren't belted in and are ejected from the vehicle.

A smaller vehicle is easier to engineer good handling with, can stop faster and avoid an accident the big rig can't.

What saves you in an accident are seat belts, air bags, and crumple zones. If a semi t-bones you in your Hummer at 40 mph you're probably going to die and will certainly be injured.