SF Airport Officials Make Citizen Arrests of Internet Rideshare Drivers

transporter_ii writes "In the past month, San Francisco International Airport officials have been citing and arresting drivers from mobile-app enabled rideshare companies that pick up and drop off passengers, an airport spokesman said. Doug Yakel said there have been seven citizen arrests issued to 'various offenders' since July 10. The airport had issued cease and desist letters to several rideshare companies, including Lyft, Sidecar and Uber, in April. Taxi drivers are holding a noon rally at San Francisco City Hall Tuesday to 'keep taxis regulated and safe' and are calling for the end of ridesharing services."

Comments

Well

[Entropy98]

Regulations = safety... right?

Re:Well

[mjwx]

Regulations = safety... right?

You declared it.

You should have said
Regulations == Safety.

And here is where you need to understand the intent rather then the method. Regulations can be and are often used as important tools for safety, regulations prohibit engine destroying additives being added to fuel, encourage electrical systems to have devices that prevent electrocution, lower prices by fostering a single standard that is available for everyone.

OTOH, regulations can be used for evil, to lock out competition and fix prices for example.

So you cant say all regulations are evil without being extremely ignorant. It's the intent, not the method that determines if something is helpful or harmful.

And yes, I've lived in a country with very few regulations... This makes building anything to be a full time job just making sure they put the plumbing and electrics in right, so the house doesn't burn down.. We're not even considering the time checking and chasing up on shonky plastering jobs.

Re:Well

[rtfa-troll]

Regulations = safety... right?

In most of Europe yes; the regulations are there in order to improve people's lives and especially safety. It is true that, in some places, people are able to change the regulations for their own profit or in ways that interfere with business. That is a symptom of failing democracy not that regulations are always bad. Your first priority must be to change your politicians. After that; once you have politicians who are trying to limit the regulations to the ones that actually matter, then is the time to start reducing the regulation which is getting in your way for no benefit.

Very often, the alternative to regulations which make it clear what needs to be done and what is just an optional extra is lawsuits, which are even more costly.

Re:Well

[jools33]

Stockholms Arlanda airport likes to charge an additional fee / tarrif for travellers to enter the airport from the rail station (in addition to the price of the ticket), there is no other exit from the station (its underground). I've often wondered what they would do if I were to get of the train without paying this fee - and then set the fire alarms of at the station or something. Or if someone were to get off the train at the airport without enough money to enter the airport itself, would they find themselves trapped as a prisoner to the airport authorities?

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Regulations == Safety.

I'm not sure in the Airport and Taxi's are unions, but that would explain all of this. This is how unions operate, in groups, again if one or both are unions.

In this case it isn't about Safety, it is about losing money.

Re:Well

[OhANameWhatName]

Your first priority must be to change your politicians

Mwu .. mwu .. mwuahahahahaha!

Oops, pardon me. Big lunch.

Re:Well

[umghhh]

easy - fine them and as they cannot pay send them to jail.

I suppose that this (I mean passengers w/o money not passengers sent to jail because if it) happen every day. they are fined, asked for account details or credit card or address to which fine is sent or if the going was good at particular day let go free.

Re:Well

[umghhh]

In most of Europe people think that regulations are intended to be there in order to improve people's lives and especially safety.It is so usually but not as frequently as they think.

Here I fixed that for you.

The reality is that even if law makers intentions were good, which are often not, the result is a compromise. This increases side effects and obscures what the real intention was. In a way it is as with a gas under pressure in a bottle - the molecules go each its own way yet the pressure on the walls of the container is constant and has seemingly nothing to do with particle X going its own zigzag trough the mostly empty space.

Re:Well

[Tailhook]

OTOH, regulations can be used for evil, to lock out competition and fix prices for example.

The taxi drivers assert that this is a safety matter. They claim that without well regulated taxi service people are going to get hurt riding in cars driven by who knows whom.

I honestly can't say which of either taxi drivers or random ride share people are a greater threat. I just know the GP wasn't wrong pointing out that this brand new 'outrage' has its basis in regulation, whether the little statist neck beards around here like it or not.

Re:Well

[putaro]

I'd feel safer in an SF taxi if they would stop talking on the damn phone. Maybe they could have a regulation that you're not allowed to do distracting things like talking on the phone, etc. while driving fares.

Re:Well

[Zironic]

It's not the airport charging that fee. The railroad to Arlanda is one of the only private rails in Sweden in a deal where the builder, A-Train (Arlanda Express) would get monopoly on rail traffic to the airport for 40 years.

Re:Well

[NouberNou]

Because only taxi drivers talk on phones while driving?

Re:Well

[jools33]

Interesting, I've always suspected it was some kind of monopoly arrangement - the Swedes seem to love these. I've travelled quite a bit - but I cannot think of another airport with a similar arrangement.

Re:Well

[rylin]

Note that the Arlada Express train does not have a paid exit, and the 75 SEK (~10 USD) fee is you're on a monthly travel card going by commuter train.

If you simply get a one way ticket on the commuter train (130 SEK or so), the exit cost is included in the price.

There really isn't a difference from some of the other train lines (Further than BÃ¥lsta requires an extra ticket, as does travel to Gnesta I believe).

Also, you can get a monthly card that actually includes the Arlanda station fee.

Obviously, neither taxis, private cars, Uber et.c. get to drop you off where you are.
However, the pre-filled line with cabs is regulated to be only Taxi Stockholm, Taxi Kurir and Taxi 020 to my knowledge.

Others can just simply pick you up next to that queue.

Basically, you've been misinformed.

Re:Well

[Zironic]

The Airport in Paris has the same thing, only a bit worse since you can't pay the fee in the airport because the doors are completely automated, had to travel all the way back to Paris and then to the airport again, good thing I had plenty of time!

The A-Train monopoly has been deemed to be a really bad deal for the government in retrospect.

Re:Well

[antifoidulus]

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA, Funniest thing I have read on /. in a LONG while. You really think most European regulations are actually about safety? Whatever you are smoking, I want some. I lived in Germany and the regulations were almost universally there for one purpose, to funnel as much tax money into politicians hands as they can get. Your self-righteousness has got to the point that you aren't even remotely cognizant of reality anymore(i.e. a European)

Re:Well

[antifoidulus]

Also, let me know what airports in Europe you can operate a for-profit taxi service out of without paying the requisite fees and having the proper licenses. I would REALLY want to know. Because, you know, "In most of Europe yes; the regulations are there in order to improve people's lives and especially safety."

Re:Well

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"Taxi drivers say...", and now you know about lawyers and lying and using laws to keep out competition, which is unethical in a free society.

In science, you address the argument, not the arguerer. In politics, it's exactly the opposite -- 99% of the time the arguerer is someone trying to get a law passed in a scurrilous manner to benefit themselves. 99% may be an underestimate.

Re:Well

[RabidReindeer]

Regulations == Safety.

I'm not sure in the Airport and Taxi's are unions, but that would explain all of this. This is how unions operate, in groups, again if one or both are unions.

In this case it isn't about Safety, it is about losing money.

This is also how companies operate. In my town, union is a 4-letter word, but any time private transportation companies are involved, they collude to keep out newcomers.

Re:Well

[thegarbz]

If it's anything like where I live all the cabs are driven by people who all come from a country with seemingly no road rules, and all seem to permanently talk on their mobile phone while driving around.

Ridesharing would be much safer than getting in a cab in most Australian cities?

Re:Well

[Bravoc]

"regulations prohibit engine destroying additives being added to fuel"

Um..... no: http://www.cycleworld.com/2013/07/05/everything-you-need-to-know-about-ethanol-fuel-and-your-motorcycle

Re:Well

[MachineShedFred]

Knowing how most taxi drivers go about their business, I'd agree that this is a safety matter; but I'd stipulate that safety is being improved by making taxi traffic a smaller percentage of cars entering the airport.

Oh, and wielding a legal regulation to lock out competition because the competition is using smartphone apps while you're stuck in the 1950s dial-a-cab era is awesome.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you can just take bus #583 to Märsta and take the train into the city from there and pay no fee :-). This is what a lot of local residents do.

Re:Well

[__aaltlg1547]

No, there are several competing taxi services and any company that wants to start a taxi company can start a service. I don't know about SF in particular but in some cities there are many independent operators as well. What they all have in common is that they work within the existing regulations according to a common set of rules. Those rules were put in place to make the competition fair and to protect customers.

Now these new companies are coming in and saying essentially, "The rules don't apply to us because we're special.," or, "Fuck the rules." The government is saying otherwise. There's a process for changing laws if people think they are outdated.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

> In my town, union is a 4-letter word
unon? unyn?

Re:Well

[Sarten-X]

That's because, for all practical purposes, unions are corporations who supply labor by (usually exclusive) contract. The same incentives to collude exist for them as for any other company. If you don't accept their contract on their terms, every other union will oppose you and impede business.

Re:Well

[Lithdren]

The whole "She started it!" argument sorta stopped working after about age 3, dont you think?

No, sadly its not just Taxi drivers who blab on their phones while driving. But if you're paying someone to drive you somewhere, and they're talking on the phone, applying makeup, reading a newspaper, or constructing a nuclear device while they drive you there, I dont see why you dont have a right to complain about this. Taxi drivers should be held to a higher standard, given they're being paid to do nothing but drive around. Frankly, everyone should be held to this particular standard however, why it's taking so long is beyond me.

Re:Well

[rot26]

any company that wants to start a taxi company can start a service

You're really naive. Why don't you start Shavano's Taxi in NYC? Think you can? Taxi service is highly regulated everywhere. The prices are set by the local authorities, who have the ability to deny licensing to anybody they want to. It's a rigged game.

Re:Well

[dunkelfalke]

You declared it.

You should have said
Regulations == Safety.

Not in Pascal.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, it wasn't against any laws to give someone a ride to the airport. If the passenger feels like tipping the person for the ride, then again, that is not illegal either.

Less taxi's in the world, the better it would be.

Re:Well

[putaro]

Because only taxi drivers talk on phones while I'm paying them to drive (since I don't have a chauffeur). Actually, that's not true, I take the bus every once in a while too and I don't want my bus driver yakking on the phone either.

Re:Well

[haystor]

Most places in the US, the taxi service is highly regulated not merely for safety but for the purpose of excluding competition. The common "regulation" is that a new taxi service must show customer demand that requires their new service. This is typically overseen by a board of their competitors who never seem to agree that they need another competitor.

You're spot on about the near impossibility of starting a new cab in a lot of major US cities. The price of a medallion for a cab in NYC is roughly $360k for an independent operator. They have a fixed number and nobody else is allowed to participate, regardless of need or service availability.

The concept of "everyone should play by the same rules" is pointless with some groups are grandfathered in and allowed to play.

Having read some discussions of Uber in Sweden, I think, regulation just meant a proper license, posting fares and insurance. All relatively reasonable requirements of a regular taxi service. There are issues with the posting of fares as Uber is a one-off service of unique trips, but that's perhaps an issue of updating the law. There is still the problem of traditional taxi services using the law to prevent a new service from coming into existence. They aren't truly interested in the customer who this law is supposed to support.

Re:Well

[IndustrialComplex]

The prices are set by the local authorities

In NYC it is even worse. The licenses (or medallions) are sold as commodities. I think the latest estimate is that one goes for over $1,000,000 in NYC now.

Re:Well

[artfulshrapnel]

No, there are several competing taxi services and any company that wants to start a taxi company can start a service...

Check up on the "medallion" system and how it's been manipulated to get an idea of how your statement (though technically correct) is not practically true. The gist is that there are a limited number of "medallions" or similar tokens given out to allow roaming taxi operators, and new ones are allotted only rarely. Due to this lock on competition there is a lot of bribery and corruption in deciding who gets them during the "random" selection, and a common scam of medallion holders continuing to hold them while not operating a service, then renting them out for exorbitant prices to other operators.

There's a process for changing laws if people think they are outdated.

Historically, what's happening is exactly how most regulatory laws get changed. Someone starts by showing that their service is in-demand and safe. Eventually they are challenged on whether they're breaking some regulatory limit, and either fight it in court or petition the local government to make the needed changes.

Now these new companies are coming in and saying essentially, "The rules don't apply to us because we're special.," or, "Fuck the rules."

Actually, they're arguing that people are trying to apply the wrong rules to them. Since their drivers don't roam and pick people up at random, instead arriving on request to pick up a specific individual, they have typically been arguing that they are a chartered transportation service. Those services are regulated under different rules, so Lyft, Uber et al are obeying those regulations. They're claiming that the fact that they book their rides minutes in advance instead of days doesn't change the nature of their business, since the only change is the speed at which they deliver the requested service. The taxi operators are trying to get them classed as taxis because those companies have a lock on the limited number of permits for such vehicles, which would allow them to shut down a source of potential competition.

In terms of obeying the spirit of the law, Lyft and Uber actually pass that test fairly well. The most commonly cited reason for the limited number of taxi medallions given out is to keep people from clogging up the roadways with idling taxis waiting for fares. Uber and Lyft drivers park or idle in parking lots and other out of the way places, only entering the roadways to pick up a customer.

Re:Well

[bws111]

It's not safety as in road safety, it's safety as in not going to take you somewhere and rob, rape, or kill you.

Re:Well

[Zontar The Mindless]

Many scoff at government regulation of the taxicab industry, but our reporter suggests that there may well be circumstances in which this is actually desirable...

Ride-sharing to and from airports using random websites to connect riders and divers is all the rage, but this doesn't seem likely to happen in China, where there are stringent regulations on this industry in most if not all major cities. While some may think this heavy-handed, this reporter rather liked the fact that, when we got in the cab yesterday morning after a long flight from Stockholm, it was somewhat reassuring to see that the gentleman behind the wheel was Mr Hua and that his taxicab licence number was #xxxxxxx, which, in the event of misunderstanding or even malfeasance, is in this reporter's opinion much more helpful to the local public safety officials when seeking redress than "um... some Chinese guy".

Whether or not the anti-regulationists change their minds after a few out-of-towners get rolled by Joe Blow From The Internet remains to be seen.

In Beijing, I'm Zontar The Mindless, reporting for Slashdot.

Re:Well

[artfulshrapnel]

This has been brought up on several occasions, and the counterargument is that the chain of information relating to the pickup is much more secure for rideshare operators.

Taxis are scary because people essentially just hop in a passing car without telling anyone, and hand the driver some cash. Fake taxis were a great way to abduct or rob people, which is the origin of a lot of the "safety" based regulations. Erratic or unlicensed drivers were another risk, since they could pose a threat to their fares and everyone around them.

With these rideshares, the passenger is submitting a request over the internet to a public facing company. That company in turn sends out a pickup request to a specific driver, who accepts it and logs their intent to pick up the passenger. With most of the services, the passenger in turn gets a chance to confirm that they have actually been picked up. Since these requests only go to their drivers, the company has the opportunity to do background checks, ensure their drivers are regulated, and keep appropriate records as a chartered ride service. It also creates a chain of responsibility that leads to the driver, if anything were to happen to the passenger.

The rideshare companies in turn have a strong incentive to get rid of unsafe drivers. They might be legally liable for letting a driver continue to operate with a dangerous history, and they have to keep at least basic records of who got picked up when and by whom to avoid getting in trouble for financial violations.

Re:Well

[kilfarsnar]

It's the intent, not the method that determines if something is helpful or harmful.

That's a life lesson right there.

Re:Well

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I guess he is unaware of the medallion system that is currently in place in NYC.

Re:Well

[Redmancometh]

The taxi driver union muscled out rickshaws in nyc too...unions are good until they become corrupt, but is it inevitible?

Re:Well

[Applehu Akbar]

Setting safety regulations that every car hire operator must abide by is one thing; limiting the number of cabs is quite another, and is what regulatory systems like the one in this article inevitably collapse into. It's easy to spot the difference: as soon as there is a limit to the number of licenses such that existing licenses become tradable commodities like shares of Berkshire Hathaway, you have a government-imposed monopoly. And about those airport "citizens' arrests"? If the airport person involved doesn't have arrest powers, what happens if you just walk away from one of these?

Re:Well

[j-beda]

No, there are several competing taxi services and any company that wants to start a taxi company can start a service.

There are huge barriers to entry that have almost nothing to do with safety regulations.

In SF, the price of a taxi license or "medalion" is $150,000-$300,000 according to this story:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/200-S-F-taxi-permits-price-150-000-4055492.php

Around the country: http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/47636506327/the-tyranny-of-the-taxi-medallions (interesting look at ride-sharing disruption of taxi business)
"In Boston, the price of a medallion is $625,000. In San Francisco, you need to drive a taxi at least 10 hours a week if you want to hold a medallion and lease it out. Veteran taxi drivers are able to sell their medallions for $300K...."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/us-business/fare-trade-the-rush-on-new-yorks-million-dollar-taxicab-licences/article12329086/
"In April, the price of a medallion sold to an individual buyer crossed $1-million for the first time (medallions sold to corporations broke through that barrier in 2011). In the past 12 months, prices for individual medallions have soared more than 40 per cent."

Re:Well

[Time_Ngler]

It is against the law.. everything is against the law in some way, or at least can be interpreted to be.

Re:Well

[eth1]

OTOH, regulations can be used for evil, to lock out competition and fix prices for example.

The taxi drivers assert that this is a safety matter. They claim that without well regulated taxi service people are going to get hurt riding in cars driven by who knows whom.

I honestly can't say which of either taxi drivers or random ride share people are a greater threat. I just know the GP wasn't wrong pointing out that this brand new 'outrage' has its basis in regulation, whether the little statist neck beards around here like it or not.

Well, maybe our licensing standards for drivers are too low. Likewise for vehicle maintenance standards. IMO, if they're too dangerous of a driver/car to have a passenger with them, I don't want them on the road with me AT ALL. So lets fix our lax standards for everyone, and this will be a non-issue.

Re:Well

[Yvanhoe]

I hate the situation as it is, but if the taxi drivers in SF are like those in Paris, you have to understand something about their demand: they had to pay a huge licence, often make a loan to pay for it.

Now they are told that the licence is not mandatory to do their job, they are rightfully angry. IMHO they should ask to be reimbursed at least partly their licence rather than preventing someone from doing the same job, but it is true that they suffer from an unfair situation.

Re:Well

[RabidReindeer]

That's because, for all practical purposes, unions are corporations who supply labor by (usually exclusive) contract. The same incentives to collude exist for them as for any other company. If you don't accept their contract on their terms, every other union will oppose you and impede business.

I see that you've been in a coma since before Reagan went up against the Air Traffic Controllers.

Re:Well

[Cormacus]

Unless he was using VHDL, in which case he's fine. Well, until it turns out that the type of 'Regulations' and the type of 'safety' aren't the same and he ends up having to do something like std_logic_vector(TO_UNSIGNED(Regulations,64)) = safety.

Re:Well

[c 0xFF]

Browsing possible translations in Google Translate (where "union" refers to a labor union), the 4 letter word could be one of a few Slavic languages, or possibly Polish.

Re:Well

[Hes Nikke]

Uñon!

Re:Well

[HereIAmJH]

With these rideshares, the passenger is submitting a request over the internet to a public facing company. That company in turn sends out a pickup request to a specific driver, who accepts it and logs their intent to pick up the passenger.

And here is the problem with the whole situation. These companies aren't offering a 'rideshare' service, they are offering a 'shuttle' service. Rideshare, I'm going someplace and I'll offer to take someone along to share the expenses. These companies are hiring drivers and dispatching them to pick up people who signed up for their service on the Internet. This is Super Shuttle with an online interface. Except that the drivers likely don't have a commercial drivers license (and training) and there are no standards on vehicles and inspections. No verification of liability or medical insurance. No background checks and a tenuous relationship with a company that may only have an online presence.

Re:Well

[rtfa-troll]

Also, let me know what airports in Europe you can operate a for-profit taxi service out of without paying the requisite fees and having the proper licenses.

I'm going to interpret "out of" to mean "picking up passengers from" not "having an office in" and "requisite fees and having the proper licenses" to mean "without paying the special airport fee" but that you may have to be a registered taxi. If you meant something different please ask again more clearly.

In which case I will answer that I don't know of one where you can't. In some such as London, where you pay #50 just to get into a taxi you would be insane to do anything other than have a "mini-cab" (these are registered, but with much lighter requirements than a proper taxi) arranged to come and meet you. You just have to do the arrangement by phone. What that cannot be done is for those taxis to wait in a taxi rank.

This is a good example of a regulation which is done for the good of the customer. In many airports there used to be serious cowboy taxis who would wait for tourists and overcharge them massively by driving around a long long route or simply by having outrageous hidden charges or by various other kinds of fraud. By regulating and ensuring that the taxis that stand outside the airport are known, that doesn't happen much any more. The locals then take the cheaper local taxis which come and pick them up at pre-arranged places so this doesn't cause much overcharging.

The Heathrow's #50 service fee is a perfect example of a failure of democracy. The airport authority has a monopoly on air transport and even so is allowed to get away with doing whatever they want. This is one example of why I said "most of Europe" rather than "in Europe".

I would REALLY want to know. Because, you know, "In most of Europe yes; the regulations are there in order to improve people's lives and especially safety."

This is still largely true. Nothing is perfect and you shouldn't expect it to be. If you have a problem with a regulation then try to get it changed. If the majority of people agree with you that it's a bad rule and you still can't, then start thinking about how to change your political system. If they think it's a good rule but are wrong then start thinking about how to educate them. If you can't do either then you have a problem.

Re:Well

[enjerth]

It's the intent, not the method that determines if something is helpful or harmful.

Intent has nothing to do with whether something ins helpful or harmful.

Reality often makes a fool of a man, even if he has the greatest of intentions.

The best practice is just to avoid folly. And this is folly.

This amounts to obstructing a peaceful, technologically advanced means of assembling to conduct regular, private business.

A legal barrier on finding mutually beneficial agreements and conducting speedy business in the information age?

We need to stop legislating disagreements. No prosperity or growth will come out of legislated disagreements, only more division and poverty.

They hate us for our freedoms.

Re:Well

[sjames]

Pretty much. That exposes the hypocrisy of the pro-corporate but anti-union people.

Re:Well

[RoknrolZombie]

I'm beginning to think so. After all, isn't a "country" just another Union on the global stage? I haven't seen any that were as benevolent as they claim to be...

Re:Well

[CAIMLAS]

In the same way that some cabbie - an illiterate, fanatical Muslim high on hashish and tweaking on energy drinks - is inherrently safer than a "business class professional", sure. Why not?

Remember, government is here to help. As San Francisco needs a LOT of help with its transportation clusterfuck, they need a lot more regulation. It follows a certain mindset and mindset predisposition.

Re:Well

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Polish is a Slavic language.

Re:Well

[Stan92057]

Alot of people need to read US History or watch the History channel and less porn. They would know why everything is so regulated and rigged as you say. A good lesson to read on is how Train barons Ruled the USA. They had the power to stop trains from entering any city their tracks went too and did use that power to fix prices. Or How Rockefeller really got his zillions of dollops Before regulations. It was all about winning at any price and all without Government regulation.

Re:Well

[flargleblarg]

Brilliant.

Re:Well

[alva_edison]

You declared it.

You should have said
Regulations == Safety.

Not in Pascal.

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html

Re:Well

[Tmack]

Sure, but the devil is in the details. WHERE do they park? Cabs must park somewhere visible where anyone can see them, a public space on public property, but these other "things", can be anywhere, in a private parking lot, or somewhere else equally privately owned.

...

How does that matter? The Uber driver could be (and has been a few times I have scheduled a pickup for a 3am flight from SFO) at home in bed. They are only providing a ride from point A to point B for customer X, after customer X contacts Uber to schedule the ride (ie: a Chartered trip). They are not soliciting rides directly, which is THE differentiator between Uber/Lyft/etc and a Taxi service. Once that charter is completed, they could go on to their next assignment or go home. Taxis circle hoping to get either a dispatch or someone flagging them down on the street.

-Tm

Re:Well

[srichard25]

You know the difference? A corporation normally doesn't threaten to break your legs if you refuse to go on strike with them.

Re:Well

[oldperson]

When the NY times covered similar pushes to regulate ride-sharing apps as taxis, they noted that the majority of stranger rapes in London were committed by unlicensed taxi drivers. Letting ride-sharing apps knock licensed taxis out of business would create a safety problem.

Re:Well

[RabidReindeer]

You know the difference? A corporation normally doesn't threaten to break your legs if you refuse to go on strike with them.

Normally. These days. It wasn't always the case that corporations abstained from corporal injury: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Maguires

Actually, I don't like unions myself. I just also don't like companies that run roughshod over employees. The best union, in my opinion is the one that you're threatening to form. And don't have to, because suddenly the company developed an "enlightened" attitude.

Re:Well

[Sarten-X]

The best union, in my opinion is the one that you're threatening to form.

Well said. I like the idea of unions, but somehow they often just turn into an extra layer of bureaucracy making tough decisions tougher, and getting in the way of employees doing what they want to do, all in the name of a perceived fairness. This is why I usually advocate right-to-work laws, because they add an incentive for the unions to stay working in the employee's favor, rather than just getting embroiled in power struggles.

Re:Well

[dunkelfalke]

Yes, I know, real programmers use butterflies.

Re:Well

[c 0xFF]

You're right, of course. I was fooled by the alphabet ... all the other 4-letter "union" words came from a Cyrillic alphabet.

Now I know.

Re:Well

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Now let's all enjoy our vodka and beer :)
Na zdrowie!

Re:Well

[Compaqt]

Wow, if I had a million dollars, would I ... buy the right to drive a taxi?

How about just put the money somewhere and live off the interest?

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

When taxi licenses("medallions") trade for $1m, that is not trading like commodities but rather like real estate. A commodity is something that usually gets spent in the chain of adding value in the process of productionf goods or services.
Estate is something that ns a yield from passing on usage rights.
Thus the way people tend to price real estate is by charging so much that if you rent the place out, you will earn X% of return, where X is a return deemed fair by the marketplace for earning a living as a landlord.
The taxi medallionns now trade the same way. If holding one gives a taxi driver pretty much a stable income of say $50k annually, if the marketplace considers a fair rate to earn from the taxi to be say 5% per annum, then the medallion must cost (50k/5)*100=$1m.
So unless you can get a medallion on the cheap (because the seller is in distress or must sell for financial reasons), getting into the taxi business will be possible but you will never be able to earn more thaN the 5%. The same reason applies in real estate where the only way to increase your yield is a fixer-upper or buying from a distressed seller on the cheap, or when the rental market demand is low and yields from it are therefore low too.
The initial owner of the real estate or the medallion is the primary wealth owner. All the other second and subsequent owners are slaves to the system.
Most likely, the taxi driver has borrowed money to buy a medallion (just like a landlord gets a mortgage on real estate) to be able to enter the business and pays interest, which eats into his yield. So as a side point of warning, don't think or automatically assume that just because a medallion costs $1m, all taxi drivers are rich.

Re:Well

[JimFive]

Now these new companies are coming in and saying essentially, "The rules don't apply to us because we're special.

I think it is important to emphasize this. And also to recognize that these are NOT "ride-sharing services", they are taxis. Ride Sharing would not have dedicated drivers taking people places, it would have people going places offering space in a car.
--
JimFive

Re:Well

[IndustrialComplex]

Wow, if I had a million dollars, would I ... buy the right to drive a taxi?

How about just put the money somewhere and live off the interest?

Someone did have a million dollars. They loaned it to the cab driver so that he could work and send a portion of his fares to the lender as interest.

So if you had a million bucks, you might actually end up putting your money in an investment fund that could actually loan money to small businesses for things like permits/fees/medallions. ;)

Re:Well

[stoatwblr]

" It was all about winning at any price and all without Government regulation."

And it's rapidly heading in that direction again.

Re:Well

[HornWumpus]

Taxi drivers don't own medallions. They lease their cabs from the person that owns the medallions and cabs for about 50K$ + cost of a car for a year.

Re:Well

[Sarten-X]

Ostensibly... More often, they collude to protect the interests of the few senior members with the most voting power, and the interests of the union's bargaining power. Really, it doesn't matter if a factory closes and a few thousand jobs are lost, as long as the union never has to admit defeat for a contract.

Re:Well

[Garridan]

Quantify "more often". Is this first-hand experience, anecdotes gleaned from one or two news stories, or do you have citations to support your notion that a majority of unions are corrupt? Because in my experience (been a member of 3 unions, am currently a steward and frequently sit in on executive committee meetings), unions are there to protect their members. And in some cases, "protecting their members" includes advising the employer not to do stupid illegal shit that will get their shop shut down.

Besides. Unions can be dissolved. In your "example" of a factory closing down because the bargaining committee didn't want to give in (please post a link to even one example of this), where the workers were willing to work for cheaper... why didn't they fire their union? Probably because (a) it didn't happen (citation please!), or (b) you're only hearing one side of the story and there's much more to it -- like the employer mismanaged funds, the factory produced a product whose supply outstripped the demands (or simply fell out of vogue), etc., etc., etc.

Re:Well

[RickRussellTX]

It's the intent, not the method that determines if something is helpful or harmful.

Good grief, no. It's the result, not the intent, that determines is something is helpful or harmful. Bad regulations are always defended on good intentions, because intentions are not a measure of performance.

regulations prohibit engine destroying additives being added to fuel, encourage electrical systems to have devices that prevent electrocution

Consumers and courts can do that just fine without regulation.

lower prices by fostering a single standard that is available for everyone

It's like we've learned nothing from the Communications Act of 1934. It's been almost a hundred years since we made these mistakes. We can do better.

Sharing is evil

[fustakrakich]

The entertainment industry says so. It seems only reasonable to see others take up the cause. Parents who tell kids to share their toys should be arrested also. It's killing the Toys R us franchise.

Re:Sharing is evil

[pthisis]

These aren't shares in that sense. While the donations they suggest are technically not mandatory, if you don't pay them then you're cut out of the system quickly. They're for-profit companies running something closer to a limo service than what anyone would mean by "rideshare". Which is fine with me, the taxi monopolies are ludicrous. But it's not like they're arresting people for carpooling or slugging or something.

Re:Sharing is evil

[Opportunist]

Outlaw corporations! They issue shares!

Re:Sharing is evil

[c0lo]

Parents who tell kids to share their toys should be arrested also. It's killing the Toys R us franchise.

Of course! The only shares nobody is arrested when they got busted are the ones used by Wall Street.

Re:Sharing is evil

[shikaisi]

Parents who tell kids to share their toys should be arrested also. It's killing the Toys R us franchise.

Parents who tell kids to share their toys should be arrested anyway. That's just promoting communism in their innocent minds. Won't someone think of the children?

Civil Offense = Arrested?

[JoeyRox]

Arresting someone for what amounts to a civil offense seems like government power overreach to me, otherwise known as fascism.

Re:Civil Offense = Arrested?

[Anonymous Coward]

They were banned by the airport first, those that continued to show up were trespassing. Trespassing is criminal offense.

Re:Civil Offense = Arrested?

[ShanghaiBill]

Arresting someone for what amounts to a civil offense seems like government power overreach to me, otherwise known as fascism.

They are being arrested for being stupid, which is (or should be) a criminal offense. This is nothing new. The SFO Airport Gestapo has always watched for any money changing hands at the curb. You just need to pay the driver before you get to airport.

Re:Civil Offense = Arrested?

[OhANameWhatName]

otherwise known as fascism

Only a communist would suggest such a thing...

Re:Civil Offense = Arrested?

[Sockatume]

government power overreach to me, otherwise known as fascism

You're not a big fan of finding shades of grey in issues, are you?

Re:Civil Offense = Arrested?

[Darinbob]

These aren't "arrests" where someone is hauled off to jail. It's a fine with a ticket essentially. The "arrest" means they were stopped and cited.

The taxi licenses are managed by the state, not the city or airport. Yes, taxis are expensive, but shuttles are a lot cheaper and also have to be licensed. The unlicensed rideshare is basically a bunch of people deciding to start a business on their own while labelling it "sharing". These are not friends dropping off friends, or riders offering to take someone for free. As a business they need to follow the rules everyone else does, no matter how cool or trendy smart phone apps are. If the license fees are exorbitant then petition the state and city to fix it.

Re:Civil Offense = Arrested?

[Kneo24]

I was going to use my mod points in this thread, but I tire of seeing people like you complain about the moderation.

Look, mod points are supposed to be used to bring about conversation to the top, whether you agree with it or not. If you see a comment that is, or has sparked debate, moderate it to the top so discussion can continue. That is the whole point. The fact that you don't know this means that you more than likely have never gotten mod points. Every time you get them, it gives you a link to the guidelines.

So the fact that something is moderated to 5 doesn't mean anything other than a few people thought the comment deserved to be promoted to the top to encourage more discussion.

Re:Civil Offense = Arrested?

[joebagodonuts]

Completely OT, but "sparking debate" is just as likely to get tagged as "troll" or "flamebait". Which is a shame. Much like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

Re:Civil Offense = Arrested?

[Raenex]

Look, mod points are supposed to be used to bring about conversation to the top, whether you agree with it or not. If you see a comment that is, or has sparked debate, moderate it to the top so discussion can continue.

By that logic, the AC you are complaining about should be modded up too. When I moderate I look for quality posts, not just something that "sparks debate".

Re:Civil Offense = Arrested?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Arresting someone for what amounts to a civil offense seems like government power overreach to me, otherwise known as fascism.

I think you're mixing up authoritarianism with fascism, which gets tricky in this case because authoritarianism is a facet of fascism and in this case the rationale for the overreach is fascism. But government power overreach, broadly, isn't the same thing as fascism, no matter what The Young Ones thought.

Re:Civil Offense = Arrested?

[dmatos]

Though I disagree with your terminology, I agree with your sentiments. Apparently, in California, citizens are allowed to make arrests any time they witness a felony, a misdemeanor, or a disruption of the peace. If you see someone toss a cigarette butt on the ground, you're allowed to arrest them.

I think the laws regarding citizen's arrest are much more sane up here in Canada, where it is only authorized for indictable offenses (what the US calls felonies), and not for summary conviction offenses (misdemeanors). Trespass is only an indictable offense if it occurs at night, so nobody would be authorized to perform a citizen's arrest for a daytime trespass.

Re:Civil Offense = Arrested?

[HalAtWork]

Exactly, it's +5 Insightful/Informative, not +5 Agree

indictable offense?

[crossmr]

Is picking someone up at the airport an indictable offense?
reason #8732 not to fly to the US...

Re:indictable offense?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. In the USA, an "indictable offense" is by legal definition a felony. These citizens arrests are not for felonies.

Stop using words and phrases when you don't know what they mean, OK?

Re:indictable offense?

[Maxo-Texas]

http://jpdefense.com/new-york-criminal-defense/2011/01/can-a-defendant-be-indicted-in-new-york-state-on-a-misdemeanor-charge/

An indictment is a written statement charging a party with the commission of a crime or other offense, drawn up by a prosecuting attorney and found and presented by a grand jury. Although the idea of a person being indicted on a misdemeanor charge may be uncommon, since the purpose of an indictment is generally used to charge a person with a felony; itâ(TM)s not always the case. ...(deleted text)

When a defendant is indicted in New York Criminal Court on a misdemeanor charge, he is subject to a petit jury hearing which has a total of six members. This hearing is used to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the defendant.

If the misdemeanor is prosecuted by the indictment, then the defendant is entitled to twelve jurors even though the highest charge is a misdemeanor. ...(deleted text)

Re:indictable offense?

[OhANameWhatName]

Is picking someone up at the airport an indictable offense?

Depends upon the following:
- The speed at which you approach
- Where you park
- Whom the person is
- What your intent is
- What you're carrying in the boot of your car
- Whether your car is correctly registered and insured
- Whether the NSA has you, your grandmother, your housemate or your neighbour on a watch list
But apart from that, land of the free .. home of the brave.

Re:indictable offense?

[OneSmartFellow]

Would you prefer summary offense and indictable offense then. After all this distinction, while going under different names, is NOT unique to the US despite your ignorance of the fact.

Re:indictable offense?

[cardpuncher]

If you're looking for reason #8733, the first time I flew into SFO there was a cop standing next to a pedestrian crossing en route to the rental car lot ticketing all the furriners who didn't realise that pedestrian signals were mandatory and who were crossing against the light. I'm sure he believed it was in the interests of "safety", too, and nothing at all to do with finding an easy way to meet his performance metrics.

Re:indictable offense?

[Spamalope]

Californication, instalment #8,720,091. Save gas, save the whales, save the trees, cycle to work - oh wait: you SHARED a vehicle to the airport?! You horrid criminal you!

Also: This very high gas tax is to encourage people to buy more fuel efficient cars. Wait, people bought them? Our gas tax revenue is down??!?!? Extra tax to 'recover' the lost tax. (Why no, the original tax wasn't just about taking money. It was for the children. And the whales.)

Re:indictable offense?

[MachineShedFred]

Pot, meet kettle.

Painting over 300M people with the same stroke of a brush seems pretty angry and childish to me.

Re:indictable offense?

[dywolf]

The irony is killing me.

Re:indictable offense?

[dywolf]

if this country stepping out into the road against the light is likely to get you killed. we dont have the same pedestrian culture over here, we drive our cars everywhere, so yes it very likely does have to do with safety. eventually people get the idea and stop stepping out into traffic.

Re:indictable offense?

[cardpuncher]

Except

(a) it was a one-lane, one-way access road with good visibility, so safety was not a real issue
(b) the cop could simply have spoken to or warned those people - he wasn't talking, only ticketing

Re:indictable offense?

[dmatos]

I'm guessing you're a Canadian, as our criminal code divides crimes up into indictable offenses and summary conviction offenses, rather than felonies and misdemeanors.

Trespass is a misdemeanor in California, but the California Penal Code authorizes arrest by a private citizen when said private citizen witnesses a "Breach of Peace." Breach of Peace has been interpreted to include felonies, misdemeanors, and even infractions (offenses smaller than misdemeanors).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest_in_the_United_States#State_Statutes

Which I agree, is completely crazy.

Re:indictable offense?

[crossmr]

I'm still not sure how picking someone up at the airport would even qualify as an infraction.

Re:indictable offense?

[Kielistic]

A) Joke (the quality of which I'm not going to comment on)

B) It does not have to be all 300+ million residents. Only a certain, much smaller, number is required before reaching a critical mass and it is seen as a cultural aspect of a group as a whole.

C) Overly self-defensive and unable to take jokes directed at their country. Reason #8734 not to fly to the US ;) [That's a joke too!]

Re:indictable offense?

[TubeSteak]

there was a cop standing next to a pedestrian crossing en route to the rental car lot ticketing all the furriners who didn't realise that pedestrian signals were mandatory and who were crossing against the light.

It's not just at the airport.
The culture in San Francisco does not support jay walking and the police reinforce that culture with meaningful enforcement.

I have numerous friends from San Francisco who visit and find themselves left at the curb because, where I live, the police don't care about jay walking.

Re:indictable offense?

[DiEx-15]

Is picking someone up at the airport an indictable offense? reason #8732 not to fly to the US...

What are reasons #1 through #8731? I could use a good read...

Re:indictable offense?

[dmatos]

Per the article, the airport is private property, and these people have been asked to not return to it. By returning after that warning, they are trespassing.

Re:indictable offense?

[crossmr]

That's not what it is. It says they sent warnings to the companies, not the individual users of the app. How would the airport know if someone is there to pick up their friend or picking up someone via a rideshare app anyway?
In order to arrest someone for trespass, they'd have to be personally notified prior that they weren't welcome on the property.

Once more government protecting big business

[assemblerex]

Meanwhile the world evolves and the dinosaurs think that by roaring louder they will divert the extinction that is free economy.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Why should someone else be able to pick up strangers for the cost of gas?

Why shouldn't someone else be able to pick up strangers for the cost of gas?

On top of that there are vehicle licenses, inspections and higher insurance.

This adds nothing of value . . . except to the government and insurance agencies. All cars need licenses, inspections and insurance anyway. If you are using your car for professional purposes, you need to report it to your insurance company anyway.

You can't tell me that the driver does not get a few bucks for the trouble.

No, I shouldn't tell you, but the drivers should report it to the IRS as income.

The whole thing is about protecting the taxi business from competition.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't someone else be able to pick up strangers for the cost of gas?

Because all of the above costs exist for a reason. They didn't just get made up because it was fun to regulate taxi drivers, they're there to protect people getting into the back of cars with strangers driving them. If they don't fight it, it allows unregulated taxis to pop up all over the place, simply by repeatedly "offering a lift" at the airport, sidestepping the entire taxi regulation system.

The whole thing is about protecting the taxi business from competition.

No, the whole thing is about protecting people from ending up in the back of "taxis" that couldn't or wouldn't get through the tighter set of rules for operating a taxi over simply owning a car.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Opportunist]

What is that "free economy" you talk about and where does it exist? It's kinda intriguing, I think we should try it some day.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Opportunist]

None of the reasons are of any value to me. If I want the safety of a regulated taxi, I'll take one. If I am willing to accept the risk of taking an unregulated one, where is the reason to disallow me to do that?

Go to your boss and tell him you need to earn 100 bucks more for "union fees" and inform me of his reply, please. Especially if you keep screaming at him that non-union workers should be banned while he has you thrown out.

Re: Once more government protecting big business

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxi drivers are strangers as well. No difference. I don't feel any safer with a taxi driver than with some random stranger. In fact I was raped once by taxi drivers. (I'm a woman). In these days and ages, Taxis aren't needed as a monopoly any longer. Taxis are still useful, but protecting their monopoly is ridiculous.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[icebraining]

They didn't just get made up because it was fun to regulate taxi drivers, they're there to protect people getting into the back of cars with strangers driving them.

Oh, please. They are there because the taxi drivers lobbied for it, going as far as rioting in the streets, beating the other drivers senseless and cutting off traffic in the financial districts, because during the great depression everyone who had a car was competing with them.

Here's an article from 1934: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/17056337/

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[stenvar]

Since when were cab drivers big business? I was one and we had to pay to be able to pick up from the airport. On top of that there are vehicle licenses, inspections and higher insurance.

If the ride share services have lower costs, for whatever reason, you can simply join them and stop being a cab driver.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Darinbob]

They get a lot of money for their "sharing". This ride "share" is a business, plain and simple.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Darinbob]

If you're acting as a limousine, then you need a limousine license. If you just cart around friends then that's one thing, but when you are offering a public service then you need to abide by the same rules as others offering the same public service. If you think it's unfair, then petition the state of California to change their rules. You can't just bypass the law just because you find it inconvenient.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Darinbob]

If someone doesn't like the laws, then there are legal ways to try to change the laws. Ignoring the laws outright is not one of those ways.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Darinbob]

If it's a scam by taxi drivers, and this business of ride sharing is popular and profitable enough, then it should be easy enough to get a petition together to add a proposition to be voted on. The legal system disappears if everyone decides they can decide on their own which laws to be ignored. Now maybe you think having no laws is a good thing but countries that do this are called failed states and have quite a lot more problems to deal with than taxi fares.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[91degrees]

The free market is not a magic bullet. Most people want regulated taxis yet the free market does not provide.

But if you want an argument that fits with your concept of a Libertarian utopia, then the owner of the airport gets to make the rules about who is allowed to pick people up there.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[gsslay]

This adds nothing of value . . . except to the government and insurance agencies. ... If you are using your car for professional purposes, you need to report it to your insurance company anyway.

I think you'd change your opinion if you were a passenger involved in a serious accident in one of these vehicles, and found that the driver was not adequately insured. Because the driver had not reported this use to their insurance company, and there wasn't any one checking they had, because they are not a registered taxi driver.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[gsslay]

If I want the safety of a gas oven built to regulations, I'll buy one. If I am willing to accept the risk of a death trap built to no regulations, where is the reason to disallow me to do that?

If I want the safety of medically prescribed medicine manufactured to regulations, I'll buy it. If I am willing to accept death from unregulated back-street medicine, where is the reason to disallow me to do that?

If I want the safety of a car built to regulations, I'll buy one. ...

If I want a safe house constructed to regulations...

You get my point. Half the time the person is not aware of the risk they are taking. Maybe they are assuming regulations apply when they are in fact being circumvented. Sometimes regulations are good. Sometimes they protect people from their own ignorance. Sometimes they protect other people for other's idiocy.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Anonymous Coward]

" Ignoring the laws outright is not one of those ways."

It most certainly fucking is you idiot. Its called civil disobedience.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[gnasher719]

Why shouldn't someone else be able to pick up strangers for the cost of gas?

Cherrypicking. I expect taxis to be available everywhere. Going to / from airports is usually one of the most profitable tours for a taxi driver, but they have to do the less profitable tours as well. If someone decides to do only the profitable tours, everyone will hurt as a result.

And I assume it is actually "cost of gas plus some healthy profit".

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[bradley13]

Because all of the above costs exist for a reason. They didn't just get made up because it was fun to regulate taxi drivers, they're there to protect people getting into the back of cars with strangers driving them.

A random taxi driver isn't a stranger?

Anyway, lots of us find a driver we like, and ask specifically for their services - this would be the case for ride-sharing as well. So they will only be strangers once.

If they don't fight it, it allows unregulated taxis to pop up all over the place, simply by repeatedly "offering a lift" at the airport, sidestepping the entire taxi regulation system.

Oh dear, how terrible! You mean that an entire raft of useless government regulations can be eliminated? Tragic, indeed, it might mean that we could also get rid of the government department that goes with them.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[blackest_k]

I was a private hire driver in the UK and there was no problem picking up at the airport, parking at the airport was a slightly different matter depending on the airport but most gave you around 10-15 minutes free parking. So for flight arrivals you would tend to wait near the airport in order to reach your passenger once they had cleared baggage handling. Dropping off was never a problem.

Bare in mind there are pretty much always airport buses shuttling passengers between the airport and the local cities often 24 hours a day. Often rail links right to the terminal. Of course Airports have local taxi services too, which you book on the spot too but its a different trade and they pay for the privilege having a rank to pick up from and a parking area to use.

Often a company will have an account with a private hire company in the town or city they are based in for business travel (better rates than you would get going for your holiday).

Going to and from the airport is quite expensive but with say four passengers its competitive with the price of bus and rail, avoids the need for long walks with luggage between the bus and rail stations, avoids the cost of driving down and paying silly money for parking at the airport. Also it beats driving for hours after a journey that may well have started for you eight hours or more previously.

Not forgetting the flight times are often scheduled for times that public transport is not available.
A 9 am flight can be impossible to make with an 8.30 check in. when the trains don't start running till 6.30 and there is a change of train part way through. Without a taxi or private hire it can mean setting off from home around 9pm maybe with a taxi to the train station getting to the nearest city for around 11:30 to drag your bags to the airport express bus stop and then spending 8 hours or so waiting in the terminal for your flight. (done that).

Of course if you have a buddy with a suitable car and the time to get up at stupid oclock in the morning who is willing and available to run you to the airport and pick you up on the way back that is going to be the best option given the alternatives.

This ride share scheme seems to be getting pretty close to being a job not quite a taxi / private hire business but a bit more than doing a buddy a favour.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[dywolf]

they are there because taxis used to be giant scams robbing people blind, driving like maniacs killing people (only the early ambulances were bigger threats on the road, and they too got regulated), dropping them at wrong location, extorting money to get to the right location, etc.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Hognoxious]

If I want the safety of a gas oven built to regulations, I'll buy one. If I am willing to accept the risk of a death trap built to no regulations, where is the reason to disallow me to do that?

Because explosions don't stop at property boundaries.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that this is not about them actually ignoring the law. The airport has declared that those who drive others as part of the services offered by these "rideshare" companies are trespassing on airport property. How are these drivers different from people I know who drive people from outside the area of the city serviced by taxis to the airport for a small fee? I know several retired men who drive people to the airport for a small fee which covers their fuel costs, wear and tear on the vehicle, and a small amount for their time. They do this mostly as a way to help out others (there is a non-profit organization that offers this service along with several others).

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Attila Dimedici]

The legal system disappears if everyone decides they can decide on their own which laws to be ignored.

The thing you overlook is WHY people start to ignore laws. It becomes common practice in a country to ignore laws which people do not like when the number and complexity of laws and regulations exceed the ability of anyone to keep track of what they need to do to remain in compliance with those laws and regulations. The U.S. has reached that point and has reached the point where that is beginning to happen. It has gotten so bad that the President of the United States decides on his own which laws to ignore, even when some of those laws were ones that he fought to have passed.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[silas_moeckel]

The fix for this and many other is to return the public green. Airports, malls all get built with public funds, eminent domain tax breaks etc. Need to amend the laws to make these public places. None of this trespass BS.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[gsslay]

More likely it's to do with the rights of whoever buys a house. They may not be willing to take a risk with a gas oven, but do not know the previous owner was happy to take a risk. Makes everyone's life easier, and safer, if it can assumed that certain things are provided to a certain standard, by law.

Same goes for the "taxi" your travelling companion has booked.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Opportunist]

Why do you think this cannot happen with "regulated" taxis? "Regulation" in this context only means that someone got money, not that they are actually doing anything for this money.

Quite frankly, an online rating system where someone who got robbed using a certain taxi can instantly tell anyone to stay the hell away from that company would work better than some government handled "regulation" system that won't even bother to start getting active until someone who matters disappears.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Opportunist]

...which is absolutely impossible with "regulated" taxis...

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Opportunist]

I don't want a libertarian utopia. I want sensible checks in place to ensure that the free market can actually work. Your example is one where the free market cannot solve the problem, by definition, since the airport does have a certain monopoly position which cannot be cracked sensibly. Unless you're willing to sacrifice more and more land to create more and more airports.

It's similar to various infrastructure services which should not be handled by the free market simply to ensure all other services can be provided on equal footing and without undue bias. But that's beyond the point.

Regulations have to be in order for some areas. That's a given. As soon as some service provider can for some fundamental reason offer a monopoly service that cannot be cracked sensibly, such a monopoly has to be monitored carefully that it doesn't threaten the free market.

Which, incidentally, is the case in your example.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Opportunist]

All your examples (except the second one, I'll get to that) would affect a third party if they fail. Exploding gas ovens can harm your neighbors, faulty cars can kill pedestrians, collapsing houses can hit some uninvolved bystander.

With medication, I honestly cannot see the reason why you shouldn't have the right to go to the quack of your liking, PROVIDED that you are indeed aware of the possible consequences and you make an informed decision. And, of course, that medication is for you, and for you alone.

I agree that certain regulations have to be in place where you being careless or a cheapskate can put others in jeopardy. But if you enter the car of "someone" instead of a licensed taxi driver, the only person you endanger is yourself.

And, bluntly, everyone should have the right to endanger himself if he feels his life is worth less than his money. Not only should it clear up the world of a few too greedy people, it would also serve as a healthy step back from the overreaching nanny state we're in.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Opportunist]

Sorry. I come from a country where laws are actually expecting people to apply common sense.

It kinda grows on you.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[jklovanc]

This adds nothing of value . . . except to the government and insurance agencies. All cars need licenses, inspections and insurance anyway. If you are using your car for professional purposes, you need to report it to your insurance company anyway.

Where I live cars need only be inspected when sold. Taxis are inspected every 6 months. Though ride share cars should inform their insurance companies most won't.

No, I shouldn't tell you, but the drivers should report it to the IRS as income.

There's that "should" again; most won't.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[jklovanc]

Ride share drivers may make a couple of hundred dollars a week in their spare time. A taxi driver tries to make a living at it. Spread the income over enough drivers and no one will be able to make a living at it. Try to find a ride at 2AM when all the ride share drivers are asleep.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[stenvar]

In effect, you're saying that people who ride cheaply during normal hours should greatly subsidize people who want cheap rides at 2am. Sorry, I don't think that's good policy.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[jklovanc]

None of the reasons are of any value to me. If I want the safety of a regulated taxi, I'll take one. If I am willing to accept the risk of taking an unregulated one, where is the reason to disallow me to do that?

When those regulated taxis have been undercut and run out of business by the unregulated taxis your choice will be gone. These unregulated taxis will again try to undercut each other until there is no safe taxis available at all. There will also be fewer available in bad weather late at night. Fewer taxis equipped to handle mobility impaired people.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[jklovanc]

people who ride cheaply during normal hours should greatly subsidize people who want a ride at all at 2am.

FTFY. By allowing the local monopoly on taxis parts of which are profitable such as fares to the airport the government also requires the taxi companies to provide services that are not profitable. These services include low hours availability, bad weather availability, services to seniors, services to the disabled, bans on profiling due to races, gender, etc. If unregulated companies just take the profitable rides there is no money to pay for the less profitable ones.

In most cases ride share drivers do it as a way to occasionally make some quick cash. One hour there may be many drivers available. A couple hours later there may be almost none. Part of the regulations is the certainty that there will be cabs on the road at all times. That can not be said for ride share programs.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[stdarg]

Because the driver had not reported this use to their insurance company, and there wasn't any one checking they had, because they are not a registered taxi driver.

So instead of spending money on enforcing the ban on non-registered taxis, why not spend the same money on enforcing the ban on improperly insured pseudo-taxis?

It seems like you're bringing up non-problems that only look like problems because they don't fit the existing taxi system. But there's nothing golden about the existing taxi system.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[stdarg]

If someone decides to do only the profitable tours, everyone will hurt as a result.

Nope, not everyone. The people who use taxis on the profitable tours will benefit due to lower costs by the taxis that don't waste their time serving low-profit routes.

The people who want a taxi for some random point A to point B trip, when they're probably the only person requesting that route in a given month, will suffer. And they should. They should pay extra.

But these ride sharing programs can bring in so much more competition that even those people will find a ride at a reasonable price.

And I wouldn't assume "cost of gas plus profit" -- if you're driving somewhere like the beach, you may use the same service and bring along one or two people, who both pay half the gas, and you pay nothing (but also make nothing). Everybody wins in that scenario. It's not like you have to quit your day job to use this.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[stenvar]

These services include low hours availability, bad weather availability, services to seniors, services to the disabled, bans on profiling due to races, gender, etc. If unregulated companies just take the profitable rides there is no money to pay for the less profitable ones.

The "less profitable" rides are simply less profitable because prices are also regulated. In effect, you still ask some groups of riders to subsidize other groups of riders, for no particularly good reason.

If you want low-cost or free service for the disabled or seniors, that can be provided or subsidized directly from tax funds. In fact, those services already exist anyway.

And discrimination in business is generally illegal; you don't need to hand out taxi monopolies to get that.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[XcepticZP]

Let me be the first to say: "Screw You, buddy." Why should the "burden" be on me to change a law? Why is the burden not on the state/politician to prove to me that this law is beneficial and/or effective to everyone in society? Hmm? Instead, they're given pretty much all the power to create laws, by virtue of us "voting" for them.

And instead of a proof/study-driven law making process, we get all these "feel good" laws that are marketed to us with blatantly vague descriptions such as "free", "just", "justice", "diversity" and the big one "fair". And then assholes like you turn around and say: "Well gee, buddy, if you don't like these laws perhaps you should campaign and petition to have them changed."

I may be quite anti-statist and libertarian, but I just don't understand how anyone can preach fairness to me when the entire law-making system is so one sided. And that goes doubly so for anti-competitive and protectionist laws such as the ones protecting unions and special interest groups.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[jklovanc]

you still ask some groups of riders to subsidize other groups of riders, for no particularly good reason.

Much like urban telephone customers subsidize rural telephone customers. That is why monopolies are granted. We grant you a monopoly but you have to do other things to make up for it. Having taxis available all the time seems a pretty good reason to me.

If you want low-cost or free service for the disabled or seniors, that can be provided or subsidized directly from tax funds

I never said free or low cost. I am talking about having equipped taxis available at all. Have you ever tried the government services? You have to book days ahead and give them a lot of leeway in timing.

And discrimination in business is generally illegal;

If there are hundreds of different "taxi companies" and a complaint is made how do you find the culprit. Fewer companies means better enforcement.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[kenai_alpenglow]

Why not--San Francisco does... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[Darinbob]

Sure, it would be great if it worked that way. But pragmatically if you look out the window you can see that the real world requires citizens to take on the burden of changing the laws.

Re:Once more government protecting big business

[stenvar]

Much like urban telephone customers subsidize rural telephone customers.

Yes, another lousy idea.

If there are hundreds of different "taxi companies" and a complaint is made how do you find the culprit. Fewer companies means better enforcement.

Just the usual litany of justifications for rent seeking. Why don't we take that to its logical conclusions, become a monarchy, and have everybody operate based on royal charters. It would surely improve things so very much.

What.

[John Pfeiffer]

I just read the summary several times, and the article twice, and I still have no idea what the hell people are getting arrested for...

But I get the feeling that if someone explains it to me, it'll only lead to me yelling "WHAT THE FUCK, AMERICA?!" and I already have a headache, so I would rather just remain ignorant this one time...

Re:What.

[Splab]

This is actually not an American only thing.

Generally, you must have a license to be a taxi driver, ride sharing like that is akin (and probably in the eyes of the government equal to) operating a taxi service, thus, if you are not licensed to do so, you are breaking the law.

Re:What.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Your headache can go away. It's just all about taxi drivers not liking pink mustaches: http://www.businessinsider.com/lyft-ride-sharing-john-zimmer-2012-9

Meet Lyft, A Startup Trying To Change San Francisco's Decades-Old Transportation System

n San Francisco, a hotbed of transportation innovation from ferries to cable cars to high-speed rail, the latest way to get around is sporting a giant, pink, fluffy mustache. If you see a car with that hood decoration, you're looking at a driver for Lyft, a new app from a startup called Zimride that lets you order a car ride from one point to another on demand. Instead of working like Uber, a similar service for professional limo drivers, Lyft has more of a community aspect, focusing on regular car owners who want to help their friends and meet new people.

Re:What.

[Anonymous Coward]

So from now on, there will only be one person in each car in the US?

Re:What.

[pthisis]

Part of the confusion is that these aren't really ride"shares", they're closer to being unlicensed cab companies. Or maybe limo companies--they don't pick up random street fares, you have to put in a request through their apps. Passengers put in online requests and pay the drivers to come and pick them up and drive them somewhere, and while there's not a mandatory fee there is a "suggested fee" given in the app at the end of the ride and the rating system ensures that passengers who don't pay get cut out of the system quickly. The company takes a percentage of each fare (20% is typical).

All of which I'm okay with (taxi monopolies are ridiculous, and the lyft/sidecar/etc market has settled on rates that are about 30% lower than what hack rates are set at), but they're for-profit companies where drivers typically make $30+ an hour. It's not like they're shutting down a "rideshare" in the sense that it sounds like.

All three of these companies have previously been fined by the California Public Utilities Commission and issued cease and desists. But the timing is surprising. CPUC had recently reversed the fines and C&Ds against all three after ensuring that they'd follow some safety regulations going forward--they're in the process of getting their drivers licensed, have agreed to have criminal background checks for all drivers (some of them did that already), and have picked up bond insurance for passengers, etc.

It looked before today like they were in the process of coming into compliance and that CPUC was backing down from a previously confrontational position in light of those concessions. See, for instance, http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57596259-93/uber-lyft-and-sidecar-get-tentative-green-light-in-calif/ They've gone through the same thing in other cities (I know they have at least tentative approval in New York after going through a lot of back and forth to make sure that they're not just bandit cabs that operate by no rules).

Re:What.

[quantaman]

try just one more time!

Hint: its the 5th sentence.

Here's the 5th sentence from the article.

Yakel said the companies are not permitted to offer their services at SFO and they are now being arrested for unlawful trespassing.

Except it doesn't really describe what the services are. Is ridesharing something like couchsurfing, and the drivers volunteers and and the companies just coordinating?

Later on it has:

He said the drivers are simply offering rides to people for a donation,

Which makes me think the drivers are looking to make some money (ie "suggested donation") and the companies are charging a connection fee. Either way the article doesn't explain the business model or the motivations of the drivers well enough for me to form an opinion.

Re:What.

[Opportunist]

But a licensed violent criminal!

Re:What.

[Splab]

Well don't know the tax code in the US, but if you are receiving it as payment for the ride, it usually has to be declared to the tax man.

Re:What.

[chrismcb]

They are being arrested for trespassing.

Re:What.

[BlueStrat]

But a licensed violent criminal!

[JackNicholas]

"Trained professionals!"

[/JackNicholas]

Strat :)

Re:What.

[Darinbob]

They're not being arrested and hauled off to jail. "Arrest" means they were stopped and cited, ie, given a ticket.

Ride share used to mean a group of people who shared a ride to work or a nearby location; possibly renting a van as a group. This new thing is a smart phone app that pairs you up with someone wanting a ride. Technically it could just be about finding someone in your area who is going to the same location you are. In practice people are turning this into an actual business, in essence they are becoming a taxi service with a smaller fare but without following regulations regarding taxis/limousines/shuttles or getting a license. The SFO airport considers these professional ridesharers to be trespassing.

Re:What.

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that they are not charging the drivers with operating an illegal taxi service (or any of the slightly different similar possible charges). They are charging the drivers with trespassing. Which means that this is merely the airport trying to get a cut of the money, rather than anything to do with any of the excuses used to justify the regulation of taxis.

Re:What.

[EkriirkE]

Well, not much would change then, would it?

How are they identified?

[BitterOak]

Are the cars marked or painted with the company names and/or logos? If they are just plain cars, how are the airport police identifying these cars as belonging to a Rideshare service, as opposed to private individuals picking up or dropping off a friend?

Re:How are they identified?

[Jeremi]

Are the cars marked or painted with the company names and/or logos?

For one of the companies at least, the cars are wearing pink mustaches. (yes, really)

Re:How are they identified?

[FireballX301]

I'm sure they have cameras recording plates of people who enter and exit the airport, and they'll flag people for suspicious activity (going to the airport more than 2 or 3 times a day, for example) and ask them what they're doing. If they admit ridesharing it's off to the pen

Re:How are they identified?

[OhANameWhatName]

the cars are wearing pink mustaches

They're in disguise.

Re:How are they identified?

[innocent_white_lamb]

Moustache rides?

Really....

Won't be happening for much longer

[johnny5555]

The California Public Utilities Commission is setting guidelines making ride-sharing legal. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57596259-93/uber-lyft-and-sidecar-get-tentative-green-light-in-calif/

Re:Won't be happening for much longer

[Darinbob]

True. But that does not necessarily mean that SFO airport has to allow them in. They might or might not, be interesting to see what happens. Technically though they may be able to ban individuals or companies, and some airports in the past have done this and offered exclusive taxi contracts, sometimes overturned in the courts though.

taxi drivers on strike

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they have fun finding and torching driverless cars when they become available, because the demise of their profession is just over the horizon.

Re:Yes, citizens arrest...for trespassing

[Dexter Herbivore]

Most of the arguments I've seen so far haven't been "Is what they are doing legal?", instead the arguments have been "Is what they are doing right?"

Re:Er what

[aXis100]

I actually feel sorry for the taxi drivers. It's not just a threat to their business - they are being undercut in ways they are not legally able to compete.

Taxi licenses cost big money, and that has to be recouped. The cars have to be maintained and inspected, and that also costs. When someone uses their personal verhicle with no other on-costs, I can see how taxi would get upset.

Try showing some compasion for a while. This is not as simple as the little guy versus big business.

Re:Citizens arrest??

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but tresspass is. The airport has banned those hiring the non-taxi rides. It's a jerk move, but it's legal.

Re:Er what

[VortexCortex]

I actually feel sorry for the taxi drivers. It's not just a threat to their business - they are being undercut in ways they are not legally able to compete.

I do not feel sorry for buggy whip makers. I will not feel sorry for taxi drivers. I will not feel sorry for ride-share services when self driving cars do them in.

I do not stand idly by while human progress is hindered. When the herd is hindered I first drop subtle hints that those who are hindering the herd should not do so. Next I advocate for field trips to the tar pit. Finally, we proceed unhindered, and not even the hipsters miss the buggy whip makers -- they burn them in their power plants or vehicles, and get custom specialty whips to use on their expensive weekend novelty carriage rides.

Re:Yes, citizens arrest...for trespassing

[philovivero]

Clearly what they are doing (the airport officials) isn't right. But so far as I can tell, airport officials have made a career of doing wrong things and saying it's in our favour. From little things like taking away our water, to major things like irradiating us. It's a little disconcerting.

Re:Er what

[penix1]

It's partly about their business and partly about public safety. Taxi services have higher insurance rates as well as safety inspections of both the cars and the drivers.

Look, this ride share serves is every bit as dangerous as hitchhiking. You are taking your chances with it that you won't be robbed of everything you have with you and your naked corpse found in the remotest part of California.

Safe? Who are these crazy cabbies kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesterday I took cabs from Potrero Hill to the Mission and back in San Francisco. The first driver was a recent immigrant who had a lit joint in his cab and talked about God while driving down 16th like it was a stockcar race. The way home wasn't much better. We had another very recent immigrant who constantly shelled and ate pistachios the entire drive.

Safe? Not so much.

 

Re:Safe? Who are these crazy cabbies kidding?

[Opportunist]

What are you complaining about? In the average roller coaster park people pay good money for rides like that.

Re:Safe? Who are these crazy cabbies kidding?

[stenvar]

It may not be safe, but it is entertainment. Are you getting that level of entertainment from a ride share service? Didn't think so!

SFO hostility

[BestNicksRTaken]

I've got to say SFO is consistently the most hostile airport I've ever been to, and I've been to a lot of them.

But this just beggars belief and basically boils down to taxi drivers wanting a monopoly and "somehow" convincing the airport officials to back them.

You can't do anything for free in the good old US-of-A, its bound to upset some corporation or other, and they're the ones with all the power, not the voters.

Re:SFO hostility

[pthisis]

There's nothing "For Free" here. Uber, Lyft, and the like are for-profit companies that charge a fare to drive you around--it's phrased as a "suggested donation", but the way their ratings system works you'll get cut out of the system (unable to use them in the future) if you don't pay. Drivers average about $30/hour, the companies take a percentage (20% for Lyft, not sure about the others).

They're basically unlicensed limo services, though they've been in talks with CPUC to get licensed and bonded and come into compliance with the law.

Re:SFO hostility

[dywolf]

ATL has it beat.

Clean their own act first

[Camael]

Before regulating, how about the existing cab companies clean up their own act first.

From TFA:-

Taxi drivers are holding a noon rally at San Francisco City Hall Tuesday to “keep taxis regulated and safe” and are calling for the end of ridesharing services.

They are calling the growing practice a “clear public safety hazard.”

Apparently, regulated taxis in San Francisco are so safe that theres a dedicated webpage discussing homicide prevention strategies. For cabs specifically in SF only.

And one of the main reasons ridesharing is taking off is that apparently existing regulated cabs offer terrible service.

San Francisco taxi drivers routinely flout the law by refusing rides, declining to take credit cards, charging unauthorized fees, speeding, smoking, and talking and texting on cellphones while driving, according to a year’s worth of passenger complaints reviewed by The Bay Citizen.

Taxis infested with bed bugs, drivers falling asleep at the wheel, rude behavior and difficulty getting a cab also were among the complaints. One patron reported that a cab driver allegedly stole his credit card number and used it to make purchases in Brazil. And two friends were upset when a driver offered them a 10 percent discount if they made out in front of him.

Actually, hmm, my sympathies might lie with the cab driver on the making out bit. But only if shes hot. ^_-

Re:Clean their own act first

[phayes]

Who said that there was a girl/woman involved? This is San Francisco after all...

Re:Clean their own act first

[shilly]

Erm.

The first website you link to is about taxi drivers being murdered by their passengers. For you to make your case effectively, you'd need that page to be about murders of passengers by their taxi drivers.

I can't speak about SF, but I can talk about London, UK. Here, there have been several rapes, assaults and murders carried out by licensed taxi drivers. But the rates are substantially higher in the unregulated (and illegal) world of unlicensed cabs. This is unsurprising, given that to drive a licensed cab you need to have a clean criminal record.

Getting in a car with a stranger carries some risk. Regulations can and do help lower that risk. Not perfectly, and not completely, and there are other ways of lowering the risk as well, but denying an obvious truth is just dumb.

Incidentally, it's pretty unpleasant to joke about sexual coercion. Before shooting off your keyboard at me for having the temerity to point this out, you might reflect on whether you would like the women or girls who are significant in your life to be subject to this -- an environment in which one stranger pushes them to act as sex objects for him for money, while another stranger laughs at them on the internet.

Re:Clean their own act first

[k8to]

It's quite likely there were two.

Re:Clean their own act first

[shilly]

You appear to be getting just warmed up with your nasty little rape fantasies. At least they don't involve actual living people. At least I hope not.

Honestly, I for the life of me cannot understand why people behave like this on the web. I understand that they enjoy jokes, or winding other people up, but it's the fact that they appear not to have any countervailing force within them saying "actually, I find that funny but it's obviously disgusting so I won't do it" that really astonishes (and saddens) me.

Re:Clean their own act first

[shilly]

In the words of the old cliche, "Don't assume. It makes an ass of u and me."

I didn't know about the Sandusky trial, what with my not being from the US.

If the point bluefoxlucid was making is as you described, it's a bloody stupid point, given that I was responding to an OP which mentioned women and not men: "only if shes hot". It would of course be no better if it were about men. But, to use your phrase, "wilfully ignoring" the fact the vast majority of people who are raped are women is stupid. Or possibly misogynist.

Just as it is it stupid, or possibly misogynist, to ignore the fact that the vast majority of commentards' threats to rape people on the internet are aimed at women. Typically women who have the gall to be prominent, such as Mary Beard, Caroline Criado-Perez or Stella Creasy.

Sometimes I wish the internet was run by Charlie Brooker, I really do.

Re:Clean their own act first

[bluefoxlucid]

No you're totally wrong. I don't like cause-heads. I don't like people that go, "By the way, you are a complete and total utter fucking ass for saying something without considering a thousand attached meanings and taking so lightly an issue that I think you should be shocked--SHOCKED--to even think about, ever! The whole concept of something you referenced in three little words in passing is so utterly, totally disgusting that you should feel damaged and require therapy every time you realize it exists, and I need to go on a twenty-minute tirade to tell you how terrible a person you are!"

I wanted to see if I could psychologically injure him. It happens. You can actually stab people in the face over the Internet if you touch the right keys.

Re:Clean their own act first

[phayes]

Two what? two dancing pigs? Ya gotta be more detailed.

Two guys? That was my point.

Re:Clean their own act first

[Camael]

For you to make your case effectively, you'd need that page to be about murders of passengers by their taxi drivers.

All right. I give you another link S.F. Taxi Driver Chokes Passenger For Not Leaving Tip

A taxi driver choked and robbed a passenger in a dispute over a tip near San Francisco’s Buena Vista Park early Sunday morning, a police spokesman said today.

Not quite on murder, but licensing does not guarantee safety per se.

I can talk about London, UK. Here, there have been several rapes, assaults and murders carried out by licensed taxi drivers. But the rates are substantially higher in the unregulated (and illegal) world of unlicensed cabs. This is unsurprising, given that to drive a licensed cab you need to have a clean criminal record.

I agree with you that unlicensed gypsy cabs are unsafe. However, here we are talking about cabs operating under ridesharing companies, which is a totally different animal. To get an idea of how they operate and their safety record, have a look at this article.

They key point is this :-

The problem is, the company typically partners with third-party limo and taxi services to pre-vet drivers, doing background checks and ensuring that they have all the necessary licenses or permits. City to city, Uber drivers are required to abide by whatever local regulations are in their jurisdiction.

For the most part, Uber and its partners follow the same regulations all the usual cab or limo services do. Which is to say, if Uber’s regulations are soft, so are those that are followed by every other taxi or limo service out there.

So, now knowing that cabs operating under ridesharing companies do follow safety regulations, does this change your opinion?

Getting in a car with a stranger carries some risk. Regulations can and do help lower that risk. Not perfectly, and not completely, and there are other ways of lowering the risk as well, but denying an obvious truth is just dumb.

That actually depends on the nature of the regulations. If they deal specifically with safety issues like background checks, then yes. If the regulations are of the "pay $$ for a licence" variety, that will not increase your safety. For the record, the taxi drivers were arrested by SFO not for being unsafe, but for unlawful trespassing. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

Incidentally, it's pretty unpleasant to joke about sexual coercion.

Hmm, the taxi driver was certainly making an unwanted proposition, but I hardly think it was coercive...Nevertheless, since my joke offends you, I apologise.

Re:Clean their own act first

[shilly]

All right. I give you another link S.F. Taxi Driver Chokes Passenger For Not Leaving Tip

A taxi driver choked and robbed a passenger in a dispute over a tip near San Francisco’s Buena Vista Park early Sunday morning, a police spokesman said today.

Not quite on murder, but licensing does not guarantee safety per se.

1. The plural of anecdote is not data. You need a comparison of licensing vs non-licensing stats
2. Licensing clearly cannot guarantee safety, but the best should not be the enemy of the good. Licensing can cut rates of assault etc.

So, now knowing that cabs operating under ridesharing companies do follow safety regulations, does this change your opinion?

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Re:Er what

[Opportunist]

Then why don't taxi drivers instead do the same, forgo licensing and other fees and offer their services at the same level? Obviously, it's what the market demands.

Re:Er what...Pre-conviction

[Maxo-Texas]

It's not just a form of unionization. It means the state has verified that this practitioner has completed certain education, in some professions has posted a bond, and in many professions must continue to complete ongoing annual education from... licensed teachers in the field.

In the case of cab drivers it probably means they must maintain a certain driving record, their cab must be maintained in a certain way and that the cab (and it's metering equipment) must be inspected on a regular basis.

The ride "share" is probably all well and good until someone dies/is seriously injured and the driver doesn't have insurance/the car had a maintenance problem, the driver was intoxicated in some way, etc. Then it gets sticky.

OTH, a lot of laws are passed because something bad happened. A person finds a new unique way to electrocute themselves which is 1 in a million odds and next year every electrician has to learn about the new element of the electrical code that makes that impossible.

However, regulatory capture does lead to higher prices (and profits) over time as well as kicking out rungs of the ladder and making it harder for those who follow to get into the field.

And next ?

[dargaud]

So, when we can call our Google car from our phone to come and pick us up automatically, will they arrest us too ? Taxi driver has always been a job for idiots and immigrants who don't speak the language. I know, there's one in the family.

The reason is as stated - protection racket

[SuperKendall]

They didn't just get made up because it was fun to regulate taxi drivers

No, they got made up because someone could then make money from ALL drivers picking up someone, and furthermore artificially jacking up prices by lowering supply.

No, the whole thing is about protecting people from ending up in the back of "taxis" that couldn't or wouldn't get through

Ha! Spoken like someone who has never been in a real taxi. In London perhaps with the black cabs we could buy your bullshit. In most other cities or most other companies you just need to fork over the VERY LARGE amount of cash required to join the club - your only instructors required being Washington and Benjamin.

Re:The reason is as stated - protection racket

[mrbester]

Black cabbies have to have The Knowledge which takes a not inconsiderable amount of time ( == money, right?) to master. They also have to take refresher courses. You don't get an encyclopaedic knowledge of London without forking out a great deal of cash.

Re:The reason is as stated - protection racket

[GlobalEcho]

Swoosh...you just restated his point.

Re:Citizens arrest??

[gl4ss]

No, but tresspass is. The airport has banned those hiring the non-taxi rides. It's a jerk move, but it's legal.

what. so eating your own sandwich in a mcdonalds is a felony? what the fuck 'murica, what the fuck.

Dispute - not often at all

[SuperKendall]

Regulations can be and are often used as important tools for safety

At one point "often" might have applied.

Now it applies perhaps in 1% of the cases where regulation is preventing something.

And yes, I've lived in a country with very few regulations.

Key word: Lived.

I note you bring up pretty much the only valid regulations that exist, among the first before the system went wild.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[N1AK]

At one point "often" might have applied. Now it applies perhaps in 1% of the cases where regulation is preventing something.

Your post reads like you have absolutely no perspective, have chosen a side, and are completely focused on supporting that position. The idea that 99% of regulation isn't beneficial is absolute nonsense.
When I came into work today in my car I benefited from regulation of air-bags, lighting, road markings, junction positioning, emissions, brakes, vehicle road worthiness and probably dozens, if not hundreds, of others.
There are stupid regulations, just like there are stupid laws, but the exceptions should be dealt with rather than throwing the whole system out.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[AlecC]

That is a hugely sweeping assertion that requires some justification. Do you have any statistical evidence to back it up, or are you speaking from sheer prejudice?

There is a huge amount of regulation. Which means that if only a very tiny bit of regulation is bad, there is a lot of bad regulation. But to generalise from the fact that there is a lot of bad regulation to the idea that 99% of regulation is bad is the sloppiest of sloppy thinking.

From you statement, for example, road safety regulations are a waste of time, as are all those for any other form of transport. There is an incredible amount of aviation safety regulation - are you happy to repeal 99% of it? Which 1% of poisonous chemicals do you want still banned? Are you happy to deregulate your local nuclear power plant, so it can be run by the workers willing to accept the lowest pay? And, of course, get rid of all those regulations intended to keep politicians at least a little hinest - sell political office to the highest bidder.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Sique]

Non-traditional houses means you don't have any experience how this construction will be in shape in five, ten or fifty years time. But normally, houses exists that long. And the regulations in place try to make sure of that. Constructing houses is a complex problem, and each new construction might have hidden problems which only appear after a few years. I remember the breaking down of the roof of a ice skating hall here around, where several factors contributed to the accident (which left about a dozen people dead).

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[thegarbz]

That would depend on the definition of a "good" regulation. You seem to cite the airbag regulation as a bad thing. Yet what was the alternative? When they first came out many countries were struggling to get passengers to buckle up. Killing a few lighter passengers vs not saving a large proportion of the population that fails to follow another regulation is not necessarily a bad thing.

Just like our building codes where I live say nothing about earthquake hardening. Though if an earthquake were to hit now and kill thousands of people would that be a failed regulation? No it would likely be an edge case given the historical lack of earthquakes.

Also with lane markings you're getting regulations and best practices convoluted. Best practice is to include lane markings on the road. Where they are included they need to follow the regulations which dictate what they will look like.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[AlecC]

Can you clarify: you are happy to take the risk of an incident which will leave millions dead, and cost trillions in property damage, and depend on financial restitution after the accident? You say you wouldn't live near it: a serious nuclear accident could pollute 1/3 of the US (Chernobyl polluted Scotland): three such plants and you have to leave the country. Do you know how open-cast mining companies have managed to manipulate such a system? An initial company opens the mine, extracts the coal and gets the profits, then as the mine is coming to the end of its life, transfers it to a shell company which has no assets. When the time comes to close the mine and rehabilitate the land, the company goes bust, with no resources to do the job their long-distant predecessors started. Ditto with pollution (Love Canal etc). Have you not heard of Bhopal - how many of them (a) got financial restitution, and (b) would not far rather have healthy lives than any financial payback? The law should prevent this, you say? Would you bet your life against the lawyers and political favours that a significant slice of a ten billion dollar profit can buy? And do you really think money can compensate for human lives? Will you sell permits to murder - which is essentially your proposition?

How much time are you willing to spend researching before going into a burger bar? Remembering that the burger chain owners will be spending significant amounts of money whitewashing their reputation and attacking those who say their food is dangerous even if it isn't. There is a proven history over millennia of big guys screwing consumers, often fatally, and getting away with it. Before food regulations were instituted in London, approximately 10% of food sold was actively dangerous (flour padded out with white lead) and more than 80% was adulterated (bread padded out with chalk). The profits from "getting away with it", and the ease of providing a fall guy to take the heat if you don't, are irresistible to the small percentage of the population who are actively dishonest - and then the majority who are trying to compete with them have to do the same and go bust.

Big business, due to simple financial muscle, can always outgun the little guy. The only solution the little guy has is to gang up together: all together we have the muscle to match business. Such a ganging-together of all the little guys is called a "government".

I can only conclude that you are completely ignorant of the law of the past 200 years if you have such a naive trust in post-facto restitution, and ignorant of advertising if you trust on reputation to warn of bad providers. That worked in a medieval village. It didn't work even in a medieval town, let alone an industrial country with tens of millions of businesses,

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[RaceProUK]

I would be happy to see nuclear power regulations repealed, so long as those that build and run nuclear power plants are actually accountable for any incidents that occur as a result of preventable actions on their part.

And the best way to do that? Regulations.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[danceswithtrees]

I would be happy to see nuclear power regulations repealed, so long as those that build and run nuclear power plants are actually accountable for any incidents that occur as a result of preventable actions on their part. This goes to the heart of statism: the protection of corporations. Corporations are an invention of government, allowing them to esacpe culpability when their interests at risk. If I run a power plant, and I neglect to have proper safety precautions and something happens, I should be held accountable for those actions.

I don't say this often, or lightly, but this is stupid idea. This is free-market libertarianism taken to the (il)logical extreme. Are you arguing that regulations are never good or necessary? What if someone wants to build a nuclear power plant near a highly populated area? Near a large water source for easy cooling, eg Fukushima? What if they are using a design that has known flaws? Are you still OK as long as those responsible will be "accountable" in the end? What about if they cut corners to recoup their investment sooner? You mention auditing and inspection but what good are these if there are no regulations? Would the inspectors just make strong suggestions? Even with the best intentions, things go wrong-- see what is happening with the San Onofre nuclear plant that is being permanently shut down due to leakage problems. Estimations are that decommissioning will take years and nearly $3B. Whats to keep those responsible from cutting corners to make a fast buck and when things go south, declaring bankruptcy and just walking away? Do you honestly think a strong sense of personal/corporate responsibility will help in this situation? Wouldn't it be nice if the nuclear power plant operators were required to have a fund that would be used when a plant closes so that the responsible parties can't just walk away? Fortunately, the operators of San Onofre do have $2.7B in a decommissioning fund-- because of regulations.

Sometimes it is OK to have a lot of experiments to find out what works best-- I think having a lot of smaller financial institutions is preferable to having a few "too big to fail" ones. With regard to nuclear power plants, are you going to let people/corporations do 100s of experiments to find out what works best? Some failures leading in meltdown causing Chernobyl type contamination zones? No. Sometimes regulations are a good thing.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Chickan]

Your quoting airbags reminded me - the first generation of airbags were dictated by the government to be set up to do a lick of good for an unbuckled passanger. As a result they detonated with such force they killed lighter people (children and small females).

Is the street lighting, road markings, and junctions a result of regulations or industry 'best practices'?

While airbags were a bit off the mark to start, the goal and intent were correct and eventually got us where we are today. Airbags have saved many many more lives than they have taken, so I'm willing to take the growing pains as a society to get to where we are today.

As for best practices, how many cities are willingly putting up more street lights? Or repainting roads to make the markings clear? Most of these things the cities/states are required to do. If we got rid of all regulations, we would be fucked. What incentive would a city or state have to fix anything? Why wouldn't a business just dump waste into streams and lakes that feed your drinking water? Its faster/cheaper/easier so it would happen over night.

I hate red tape just as much as the next guy, and I spend a good chunk of my time at work filling out "TPS" reports, but these systems are in place to keep douchebags (people/corporations) from doing what comes naturally to them, screwing us all over. As far as the story goes, I like the idea of rideshare, and can see how taxis are getting pissed, but is that the best thing our police departments can be doing, investigating and ticketing normal people over stepping on a taxi drivers toes?

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[tibit]

said regulations make it hard to build a non-traditional house, for example

I don't know where you live, but at least in the U.S., pretty much all building codes say that if an engineer has designed it, so it will be. No problems with non-traditional houses, as long as you've got someone competent to design it.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Zak3056]

I don't know where you live, but at least in the U.S., pretty much all building codes say that if an engineer has designed it, so it will be. No problems with non-traditional houses, as long as you've got someone competent to design it.

Says the man who has never met a county building inspector. It doesn't matter if code explicitly states that something is permissible--if they don't personally understand it, it doesn't meet code. If they don't like the practice, it doesn't meet code. If they had a fight with their wife that morning, their kid hates them, and the dog just bit them, it doesn't meet code.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[doggo]

I'm pretty sick of hearing the same old tired bullshit from conservatives and libertarians about how regulations, unions, and taxes are so awful.

You can always find some instance of where a given regulation is bad, a union is over-reaching, or taxation is burdensome. But these three things, regulations, unions, and taxes, define civilization as we know it in the contemporary U.S.

Regulations (laws) and the regulatory agencies were demanded by the people and put into place to protect citizenry from consistently ethics-challenged business world. Likewise unions. Business, it turns out, cares more about turning a profit than the health, safety, and welfare of you, your family, employees, and the environment we all live in. If you don't threaten to throw 'em in jail, or subject them to penny ante fines and public humiliation, businesses will happily bait and switch your ass to death. They'll pay you starvation wages to work in situations as dangerous as the most dangerous situation you can imagine. And dock your pay if you're late.

For every bad regulation you come up with, there are a thousand that have saved your life in the last week. For every non-union shop that you claim is fair and treats its employees fairly and looks out for their safety there are a thousand people on disability from preventable industrial accidents.

And taxes help pay for those life-saving regulations. And roads. And bridges. And schools. And police and fire departments, health departments, public parks, libraries, universities, basic research, the arts, THE MILITARY... Need I go on?

And for every onerous tax you mention, there are a thousand benefits you've personally reaped in services and infrastructure paid for by our taxes.

So I don't want to hear about how bad government regulation is, or that unions're bad, mmm'kay? Or that we shouldn't pay taxes. If you don't want to participate in our society and partake of the benefits, fucking move someplace where you don't have to suffer those "burdens".

I hear Somalia doesn't have personal income tax...

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[gander666]

Is the street lighting, road markings, and junctions a result of regulations or industry 'best practices'?

Yes, there are regulations for all of that, and if you want to see a cluster fuck, visit a country where there are none, or if there are, they are not enforces (India and Philippines come to mind)

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Attila Dimedici]

When I came into work today in my car I benefited from regulation of air-bags...

So, how badly was your car damaged in the accident? If you were not in an accident, you did not benefit from the regulations on airbags. You did. however, get to pay more for your car because of them.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Attila Dimedici]

That would depend on the definition of a "good" regulation. You seem to cite the airbag regulation as a bad thing. Yet what was the alternative?

The alternative was to let the automotive companies compete over who had the best airbags and let the consumers decide which cars were the best value for their money...including safety features. When airbags first came out, they were introduced by certain automakers as a way of differentiating their cars as safer than other cars. As time went on, manufacturers introduced them in more and more models, because there was a demand for cars with them in. However, when it became apparent that some consumers would not spend the extra money for airbags, at least a few of them because they could not afford that extra cost, some people decided that if you could not afford a car with airbags, you shouldn't have a car and got the government to mandate that everyone who bought a car had to pay for airbags.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[tmosley]

How much would someone have benefited from having a car that cost 1/10th of what you paid but without many of those safety features? Someone then able to get to a job, who could then earn more, save more, and eventually afford a nice, safe car like yours. But now he can't, because the price of a car is too much.

People always look at things like that and think they wouldn't exist at all without the government sticking a gun in the face of the car companies, as if the people running companies had no sense, and that the people buying their products don't have any either. But yeah, sure, the government knows best. Don't question their ultimate authority, or else.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[bws111]

Let me get this straight. You are basically saying you would gladly trade the lives of your family and friends in order to be free of regulation (so long as the entity responsible for ending their lives gets 'held accountable'). Is that correct?

You're going to 'voluntarily pay' a company to check on the safetly of a power plant? Yeah, right. Who, exactly, is going to select this company? Is every individual living near a plant going to hire their own company to do that? What if they don't? Does that mean that if there is an accident only the people who didn't pay are going to be affected, while those that did will be perfecly safe? What about the people who live 300 miles from the plant but use the electricty generated by the plant - why would they care to pay to have the plant inspected?

Of course nobody is going to fly on an airline that has 'a lot' of crashes. In the meantime, on the way to 'a lot' of crashes, we have 'a lot' of dead people. But thank heavens those lucky dead people didn't have to suffer under the oppression of regulations, or have any of their money STOLEN from them to help ensure they would complete their triip successfully.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[crakbone]

"Killing a few lighter passengers vs not saving a large proportion of the population that fails to follow another regulation is not necessarily a bad thing." The technology for multi stage airbags was around before the mandates for airbags. DOT had a prototype car made that could save all passengers in it from a head on 50 mile an hour crash with no seat belts. ( http://jalopnik.com/5549518/how-the-us-government-killed-the-safest-car-ever-built ) "Killing a few lighter passengers" could have been avoided if that technology had been integrated into the system. Regulations are great but not when the focus is moved from people safety to profit safety.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[tmosley]

Actually, regulations let the companies shrug off the responsibility, as following the letter of said regulations shields them from liability in many cases. No, simple lawsuits would be effective. Even more effective if you got rid of the corporate veil and allowed judgements to attach the assets of company owners (ie shareholders). You can bet that those companies will really and truly be committed to safety at that point.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[tmosley]

Nuclear regulations are so overbearing that nuclear operators can't do anything. They are forced to use existing designs, even though they are unsafe. They are forced to use existing reactors, even though they are 40 years past their designated lifetime. They can't move spent fuel off site to safe storage. No, they just sit there, getting more and more dangerous, until something blows up.

False dichotomies, false dichotomies everywhere. You say that regulations are super good, while another says they are super bad, when the fact is that there are simply FAR TOO MANY OF THEM, so much so that no-one can get anything done, especially in the nuclear power space.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[bws111]

And what happens when the guy in his elcheapo car without all those safety features gets into an accident? He didn't have enough money to pay for safety features, but he has plenty to cover all the expenses of that accident, right? I mean, there is no way that would lead to all of us having higher insurance costs (or taxes), would it?

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[devman]

Lawsuits for damages are only reactionary measures. Money can't fix everything, sometimes you need regulation as a proactive measure.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[haystor]

Additionally:

I paid more for my car because of airbags. Because of them, I can't seat a kid in the front seat. "The back seat is the safest place for a kid to sit" you say? It's the safest place for my wife to sit too, but I don't make her sit back there. I don't get a choice in the matter because my usage is dictated by the government.

Same thing with seat belts. We have basically the same seat belts we had 30 years ago. They can't make those better? They must be so good they're also used in F1, NASCAR and Indy. Not even close. Government regulation has completely stopped any effort to make seat belts safer for regular drivers by making any such innovation a liability to whoever tries it.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[leaen]

How much would someone have benefited from having a car that cost 1/10th of what you paid but without many of those safety features? Someone then able to get to a job, who could then earn more, save more, and eventually afford a nice, safe car like yours. But now he can't, because the price of a car is too much.

That type of car is called motorcycle.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Ichijo]

What incentive would a city or state have to fix anything?

Tax revenue. If you let a neighborhood fall into disrepair, property values plummet and so does property tax revenue. Therefore, cities should prioritize repairs based on ROI (the cost of the repair versus the increased tax revenue to the city), just like people do when they fix up their homes for resale.

In fact, I'd say it's fiscally irresponsible of cities not to use ROI to prioritize infrastructure projects.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[kilfarsnar]

I'm going to preface this by saying I'm using the term "regulation" in this post to mean "government regulation". Private entities impose regulations on member companies all the time, and I have no issue with it. This response is a rebuttal only to the idea of "government regulation". Is there regulation that specifies network architectures? Is there regulation that says TCP/IP is the backbone of the Internet? Is there regulation that says USB is the standard method of connection for a whole slew of devices? Information Technology is the most UNregulated industry in the world....it also happens to be the fastest growing (for decades now) and the most diverse in terms of job opportunities and applications to customers. Regulations are ALWAYS about protecting a preferred interest, never about safety. The old addage is "you get what you pay for". If you pay for something that has an inherent lack of safety, but it's cheaper, and you get more customers than the guy that charges a higher price for the safe product...who do you think is going to demand the regulation? The customers certainly aren't, they are obviously happy with the less safe product, else they wouldn't buy it. The only person that would scream for safety regulation is the one knows he can drive his competition if his competitor were FORCED to meet the same standards. You cite air-bags, lighting, road markers, etc. as regulations you "benefit" from. Are you telling me that if not for regulations cars would wander aimlessly through the dark on dirt paths? This is absolutely ludicrous and is simply a "who will build the roads?" argument. It stems from a belief that without forced coercion at the point of a gun that people would not provide a quality product (and if roads and general safety were products to be sold instead of given away after stealing from others, they would be quality...to those that purchase them). Life is about risk management. No one can be 100% safe all the time. It is incumbent upon the individual to take the various risks in their own life and weigh those against the resources available to them. Some people don't trust elevators, they simply don't ride them, they take the stairs instead. It takes longer, thus it consumes their time. That is resource and risk management, and if you don't do it for yourself you're simply helpless and reliant on others to make decisions for you.

Look, this is ridiculous. I am all for personal responsibility and I try to exercise it in my daily life. I ride a motorcycle for crying out loud, I need to be personally responsible. So I agree that people need to think about what they are doing and consider the consequences.

But our modern world is too complex to have people weighing every decision. I don't have time to make sure that every restaurant I eat at has clean facilities. Are we all supposed to inspect the kitchen ourselves? I can't personally verify that the apartment building I live in was properly built, or that the airbags in my car will work properly and only when they are needed, or that the taxi I'm riding in has been properly maintained, or that the medicines I'm taking are safe and effective. And if I find that any of these are not the case, I don't have the resources to correct them. I can take my money elsewhere, but that's not incredibly effective; I'm a drop in the bucket.

It would be great if we all had perfect information and could make rational choices based on our own sense of what is most important to us. Really, I would dig that. But the fact is we don't have the expertise or the resources to independently judge the entirely of the world around us. It's too big, and life moves too fast these days. We need regulations to make sure basic standards are being met. Sometimes those regulations are used for anti-competitive goals, and I agree that's wrong. But to say regulations are ALWAYS about protecting a preferred interest, never about safety is not correct either.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[tibit]

Having recently paid for three permits and six inspections for me and myself doing the work on my own house, I beg to differ. If you're building a non-standard, engineer-designed home, presumably you have enough money to immediately quash any attempts by inspectors at not following the rules. Lawyers come comparatively cheap when you think about the cost of the entire project.

If they don't get it, they'll (at least they should) ask for plans - plans that are sealed by a PE or an architect and are approved by the county. Yes, inspectors are people, and they may have overcoming their own biases low on their priority list. Still I think you're painting a picture that's overly gloomy.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Firethorn]

Ichijo has it - ROI, basically. Thing to remember is that a city/state isn't a business, it IS the government. Regulations are how the government forces businesses and individuals to do things, but things are a lot looser inside.

Most of these things the cities/states are required to do.

Are you sure about this 'requirement'? I'm pretty sure the involved infrastructure departments get to pick where and when. Also, it might surprise you, but in many cases cities today are taking down street lights, putting in timers and such to save power. Lighting technology has advanced, and it turns out some of our lighting is really, really horrid. Though how bad really depends on the designer - Some from the '50s were really efficient about their lighting(especially industrial; street lights have always been highly efficient), some today are horrible light polluters.

Like I said earlier - I ballpark in 50% of regulations. I'll counter with rules such as the one in the state of Texas that requires a Barber be capable of giving a straight razor shave, despite 99% of them never doing it outside of qualification for their license. Requiring a license to cut hair in general(though coloring it is a bit different). One state had one that any place that sells open container alcohol needs to also sell prepared food(so most bars have a crockpot of soup or something).

but is that the best thing our police departments can be doing, investigating and ticketing normal people over stepping on a taxi drivers toes?

By the sounds of it the police aren't doing it; maybe the specific 'airport police' that the airport is paying for. They do specify that they're doing 'citizen's arrests' so they're certainly not official, though I don't understand how they can get court dates without formal police presences.

Of course, it also sucks because traditionally you can't get charged with trespassing without being formally told to leave. Once you're told to leave you have to do so in an expedient manner, but you're allowed to collect your goods and leave in a safe manner.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Chickan]

But again, you are thinking like a homeowner that plans to stay in the home for some time. Politicians think very short term, so instead of "If we fix that bridge it will bring more people to the town, and eventually lead to more tax revenue", its "I dont think we we should fix the bridge since it will be expensive now, it will last a few more years". Short term politicians have no incentives to do what is best for the country/state/city in the long term.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[CrimsonAvenger]

In fact, I'd say it's fiscally irresponsible of cities not to use ROI to prioritize infrastructure projects.

So, you're in favour of cities favouring wealthy neighborhoods over poorer neighborhoods, since they'll get more tax revenues from the millionaires paying taxes than the poor receiving welfare?

Interesting idea, that....

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Chickan]

By the sounds of it the police aren't doing it; maybe the specific 'airport police' that the airport is paying for. They do specify that they're doing 'citizen's arrests' so they're certainly not official, though I don't understand how they can get court dates without formal police presences.

Of course, it also sucks because traditionally you can't get charged with trespassing without being formally told to leave. Once you're told to leave you have to do so in an expedient manner, but you're allowed to collect your goods and leave in a safe manner.

I also wonder if this is the airports getting upset by the loss of revenue, as most airports charge the taxi's $2-5 per pickup, a fee that gets passed directly to the traveller.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Ichijo]

Where I live, poor people live in denser areas that have a lower infrastructure cost per dwelling unit than where wealthy people live, and that are close to taxpaying businesses. So I think you'll find that prioritizing repairs by ROI would keep tax revenue from leaving poor areas and subsidizing wealthy neighborhoods.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[svtdragon]

It must be nice in libertarian la-la-land. Do you guys ever talk to the communists? I hear they had a plan that was predicated upon similar naivete about human nature, and how we can all just band together to accomplish an awesome society, because nobody is too selfish to do something that benefits them at the expense of the common good, right?

Ah yes, the will of the people. Of course it's the will of the people, that's why it has to be enacted through government violence, right? Or....if it was actually the will of the people they would have formed a voluntary association to accomplish the same goal minus the violence and theft.

It's the will of enough of the people that democracy (please, no semantic pedantry) has decreed it. The problem with voluntary associations is that the people who don't like the regulations--typically the people who would be found in violation of them--will just opt out. The fact that a vocal minority feels that regulation impinges on their profits is a good indication that it's still necessary.

Also, re: the Fed... LOL goldbuggery. Even Friedman thought you people were fucking insane.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[bws111]

They're not looking out for YOUR best interest in the case of a non-traditional house, they are looking out for the interests of everyone else. You know, like the rescue workers who will have to come to find your body when your non-tradtional house collapses. Or the fireman who falls through the giant unprotected hole in the floor (that you just thought was so cool) when he comes to put out the flames that your non-traditional electrical work caused. Or the neighbors whose property values just went through the floor with the addition of your non-traditional house in the neighborhood.

If you want to act like your actions are your business alone, and have no impact on anyone else, then go live somewhere where you can do that. There are plenty of wide-open spaces in the US where you can build and no-one will give a crap if your house burns down. If you want to live with the rest of us, then you get to play by our rules.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Sentrion]

Please read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons carefully before dismissing all government regulation. As for the notion that we should all take personal responsibility for our own risk management, we are already a country of crazy, paranoid, delusional preppers, stocking up on ammo and growing our own food because of a lack of trust of the "system" - however you define the "system" (whether government controlled or corporate controlled).

Now, I consider myself an advocate for individual liberties and taking personal responsibility for most of life's choices. But when the resources I need are controlled by only three companies, or a rail line or pipeline or fertilizer plant is built right near where I live I want the government to impose regulations to keep my family and my property safe. There is no doubt in my mind that many regulations, even those supposedly for "safety" are not necessary or serve a hidden agenda (such as the private interests of a trade union, corporation, or industry), but I don't think that means we should lift every regulation.

Take safety belts for example. I don't see the point in ticketing adults who have made their own decision. Not wearing that safety belt will only lead to their own harm, and will not harm others. But I do think that securing children should be enforced, as I do not believe that parents have exclusive life and death rights over their offspring.

The proper balance of moderate regulation is what is needed. Just enough to keep society from "taking the stairs" in your example. The patent and copyright system goes back to our founding because the government does not exist solely to provide military and police protection services. There is a national unifying interest in forming a society where people can make rational decisions and pursue efficient use of their limited resources without holding back because of irrational fears or paranoia. Public safety and environmental regulations help ease some of those fears and paranoia, which is important given certain disasters that shook the confidence of the public, such as the school explosion in Texas that lead to the licensing of professional engineers.

A fundamental problem with regulations is that we do have "some" consumer protection from our government, not everything is guaranteed to protect consumers. What we need are clear boundaries and public awareness so that citizens understand what they can expect to be safe and where they need to exercise their own discernment. And where possible, regulations should be loosened or left to free market mechanisms, so long as the public is not abandoned and left in danger. Third party private certification agencies are good example of free market mechanisms. You have UL and similar listings for electrical products, ABS product approval for the international shipping industry, AKC registration for dogs, Verisign for SSL Certificates, the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, etc.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Sentrion]

And yet you are allowed to ride motorcyles without airbags or seat belts. This is a good example for when common sense needs to be applied to the decision to regulate or not regulate.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[rahvin112]

And you can challenge them on the spot and through the process if they won't follow the rules.

Three Civil engineers were building a large retaining wall on one of their property. The inspector showed up and said you can't build walls higher than 4 feet tall without a plan and inspection every few feet. The engineer who's property it was grabbed a sketch that was nothing more than line on paper, grabbed his seal and stamped and signed the "design plan" handed it to the inspector and informed the inspector that private inspection of the wall would be handled by the 3 on site engineers. The inspector called his boss who came out and told him to shut up.

Regulation is there to protect future owners of the property. You build the house wrong or don't follow code and you can end up killing someone. That inspection prevents you from being charged with homicide later. Inspection is a good thing even if some of the jackasses in the business are just that.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[scot4875]

Do you have evidence that safety features make up 90% of the cost of a car, or is that just a number you pulled out of your ass? Kind of like the '99% of regulations being bad' idiocy that started this thread.

If you have data, show it. Maybe you'll convince somebody. Otherwise DO NOT QUOTE NUMBERS. It just makes you look like a jackass.

--Jeremy

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[HereIAmJH]

It doesn't matter if code explicitly states that something is permissible--if they don't personally understand it, it doesn't meet code. If they don't like the practice, it doesn't meet code.

As someone who does have experience with codes enforcement, I can tell you for a fact that in the US, if the code explicitly states something is permissible, it will be accepted by the inspector. City/County governments don't like to get sued any more than the rest of us do. If my city codes inspector failed my inspection because he 'didn't like the practice', I'd make 3 calls and it would be resolved; the city administrator, my alderman, and my attorney. In that order.

As far as the GP's assertion that if an engineer designed it, then it's good. That's bullshit too. Many jurisdictions base their codes on national standards, and the engineer needs to be familiar with the codes for the property in question. For example, if code says a 2x10 floor joist can span x feet. The engineer can't make the span x+1 and say "a little deflection is acceptable". It will fail inspection, builder will have to remedy the problem, and the person paying the bills is going to sue the engineer for the additional costs.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[nosferatu1001]

You do realise that, at least in every car I have ever seen, you can deactivate the airbags at the front?

Essentialy did you bother to RTFM?

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Dynedain]

You are wrong. Talk to an architect about the permitting and inspection process some time.

My wife is the architect handling construction administration on a $125M train station. She has had to deal with issues where one inspector explicitly reviewed and approved something in their plans, and now another from the same office is rejecting it as it is being built. She now has 3 alternatives for the client to choose from: spend $30K, $90K, or $1.5M (plus her time). And this is just on one small piece of a huge project.

Why does this happen? Because Building Codes, like most legal documents, are not as explicit as computer code. There's a lot of ambiguity and conflicts within building codes leaving much open to the interpretation of the individual inspector.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Teun]

You are overlooking the finer points and they count!

TCP/IP, USB and all such things are strictly regulated, they're called standards (or rfc's etc.) and something needs to be standards compliant to fit in the system.

Hell, the word 'system' has it in it, you're either in and you can play or you're out to find your own game.

Going on about cars on dirt paths, what about the regulation we all drive on the same side of that road, where are the vested interest?

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[sjames]

Most of that actually is due to regulations or the closely related matter of the government itself maintaining the roads, the lighting, and the signs. The lighting on the cars themselves is a matter of regulation.

The airbag thing is a loss though. If you're buckled in properly it will do nothing but cost a lot of money when they deploy (not necessarily in a serious accident) and possibly even cause loss of control. Surely buckling in should disable the airbag.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[bws111]

This was not a discussion about nuclear power, it was a discussion about regulation and nuclear power was an example. The problem IN GENERAL is how to get someone to do something that, while it may cost them personally, is better for society in general. The only thing you have said that makes any sense so far is that nobody has a solution. The best we have is threat of violence, and chances are excellent that will be the best we EVER have. Constant whining and complaining is not going to change that.

Libertarians are always saying the solution to everything is lawsuits. Well, what happens when someone loses a suit and refuses to pay? You would never threaten violence, would you?

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[sjames]

Absolutely! But what are you going to do? There's only so many caves available and half of them have bats!

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[mdielmann]

As far as the GP's assertion that if an engineer designed it, then it's good. That's bullshit too. Many jurisdictions base their codes on national standards, and the engineer needs to be familiar with the codes for the property in question. For example, if code says a 2x10 floor joist can span x feet. The engineer can't make the span x+1 and say "a little deflection is acceptable". It will fail inspection, builder will have to remedy the problem, and the person paying the bills is going to sue the engineer for the additional costs.

Of course, you neglect to mention that any engineer who wants to keep his stamp won't actually use it on something he knows is against code. It's not just a ring you get when you graduate.

Here's an example from my part of the world.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[sjames]

USB is an interesting case where the organization is using trademark law to enforce compliance. If your device doesn't correctly inter-operate, you may not call it USB or have the USB logo on the plug.

As for unsafe products, the regulations are demanded by people who didn't get a say in the purchasing decision who may be harmed by the unsafe product, people who didn't know there was a safety issue who got harmed by the product, AND the competition that responsibly makes a safer product. You aren't the one who gets squashed into a paste when the steering on your car fails without warning and careens onto the sidewalk.

The average person is not able to be a mechanical engineer, biochemist, electrical engineer, etc all at once. They can't properly evaluate the safety of everything. Don't claim unregulated 'independent' safety certifications as an answer either, they tend to be beholden to the manufacturers they are supposed to certify.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[tibit]

Um, since when does an inspector have the authority or training to reject something that an engineer/architect has designed? They don't have the training to do so, they are not allowed to make design decisions (it'd be illegal, in fact), and the codes explicitly say that equivalently engineered stuff is off-limits, more-or-less. Is there a lawyer familiar with such things on retainer for the project? There should be.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Dynedain]

Inspectors have training in the building code (which is a lot more than just certifying a piece of structure meets certain engineering requirements). For example, does a room need fire sprinklers or not, how many exits does it need, can you place item X within Y feet of area Z when Z is used sometimes for W and sometimes for V.

Inspectors reject architectural and engineering specifications all the time. This is why your architect/engineer/contractor submit plan sets to the city planning department for permits.

Inspectors can't make design decisions, but they can say that the designs are not approved.

Lawyers aren't involved because it's unnecessary, and part of the job of the architect, engineers, and contractors to do this back and forth during the permit process and construction inspection process. Plus, there are extremely few lawyers with experience in this area, and they'll just hire architects/contractors/engineers as expert witnesses in the field.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Firethorn]

government itself maintaining the roads, the lighting, and the signs

Thus why I don't consider those 'regulations' in the traditional sense. DOT generally makes recommendations, not requirements.

The lighting on the cars themselves is a matter of regulation.

Indeed, but even then I understand it's slowed progress - at one point specific sealed bulb packages were required(only seen on Jeeps today), and it wasn't until that regulation was done away with that we got better aerodynamics(improved mileage), and as I understand it it's slowed the switch to LED lighting, which is actually cheaper/more efficient - generally life of the vehicle, no need to replace.

Surely buckling in should disable the airbag.

Modern multistage airbags do add a substantial amount of safety in a crash today; even(especially) if you're wearing your seatbelt, though the seatbelt itself is still a bigger safety improvement than all the airbags.

I was in a relatively minor accident where between my bracing* and the seatbelt I never touched the airbag, but because it went off my car was totaled.

*I remember thinking 'Don't lock my elbows!'

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[sjames]

I'm not sure where you might find that option. The government version at least has the possibility of issuing a ruling the manufacturers don';t like without going bankrupt and it can't just fold the tents and re-appear tomorrow under a new name if it rubber-stamps dangerous products.

But imagine, if we had socialized medicine and decent disability programs, it would strongly internalize those externalities ;-).

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[sjames]

According to Wikipedia, the requirement for sealed beam went away in 1984, long before a practical LED existed. It did limit options for streamlining up until then, but we didn't exactly see an avalanche of new sleek cars when it was lifted so I'm not sure how much harm it was doing.

WRT the air bags, it sounds like your one actual experience with them was to have the value of your car unnecessarily destroyed.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Firethorn]

I phrased it poorly - what I meant to say is that regulations concerning headlights, separate from the sealed beam one that eventually went away, has slowed the adoption of LED ones. There's other issues, but the regulations haven't helped.

I know it wasn't an 'avalanche', but it did slow things - they had to kill the regulation before they even started going away from sealed beams. It's sort of like how some local building codes used to specify asphalt shingles of at least X fire grade - asphalt shingles were mandated - no option for shale, tile, metal, etc...

The air bags - pretty much. If the accident had been more violent they probably would have helped; as is I was 'perfectly' safe even without them. Though I'll point out that the current rules say 'airbags!'. It's my understanding that there's no option for a car manufacturer to develop an alternative that creates a car that's as safe or safer than one equipped with airbags. So the regulation isn't agile.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[thegarbz]

Regulation NEVER mandates the latest technology. That is about the only certainty in this debate.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Agent0013]

That is wrong. My car cannot deactivate the front airbags. Honda Civic, airbags always active unless you have a mechanic remove it at the cost of big bucks.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[stoatwblr]

european cars are designed with SRS multistage airbags. They won't fire if the computer thinks they're not needed (or if the crash is off-angled too far). I T-boned an idiot who ran a stop with an impact speed of about 20mph (pretty much renmoved his front end) and the bag didn't go off. The car was a writeoff anyway due to the entire front end being warped about 4 inches.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[Firethorn]

Accident mechanics can be weird, the difference in labor costs between robots in a factor and humans in a repair shop is sufficiently huge that it takes surprisingly little damage today to total a vehicle.

Still, airbags are a surprisingly expensive system to replace - several thousands of dollars for a driver's airbag, for example. It can easily push a vehicle from 'fix' to 'totaled'. It did with my car. The airbag system fix alone was over 50% of the total.

Re:Dispute - not often at all

[tibit]

So it's a bit more messed up than I thought, then. I didn't deal with big projects, perhaps thankfully.

In this case, its pure extortion

[Camael]

It's all about the money. The SF airport officials want their cut of the fares and are bullying the rideshare cabs to get it. This is what they said in April :-

The airport has demanded that six different ridesharing companies quit their SFO operations until further notice.

“It’s not fair for the cab companies that go through the permitting process to compete with these unregistered vehicles,” said airport spokesman Doug Yakel. “Not only are we talking about the limited space at the airport, but also the safety of our passengers.”

A trip to the airport can result in a $50 fare for cabs, but drivers must pay nominal fees each time they enter and exit the hub as part of the permitting process overseen by the CPUC. SFO wants all ridesharing companies to be certified by the CPUC before operating at the airport.

So, when banning the ridesharing cabs (who don't pay their 'nominal fees') didn't work, they started arresting the cab drivers.

After the cease and desist order was issued, airport officials and police began “admonishing” rideshare drivers who dropped off or picked up passengers at the airport.

Starting July 10, airport officials began slapping rideshare operators with citizen arrests for trespassing when they were discovered at the airport. “This is not the type of arrest where somebody gets put in jail,” Doug Yakel told Ars. “It's a misdemeanor and it's for trespassing.” Yakel went on to say that the curbside airport police observe and “have the right to question drivers,” if they see anything that appears to indicate ridesharing. Tells include anything from the giant pink mustache that Lyft drivers slap on their car grill to seeing the rider and driver exchange money before the rider leaves. “There could be a variety of different things that [airport police] would be looking for to see if there's a rideshare transaction,” Yakel explained.

At that point, airport police contact an airport official, who writes the rideshare driver a citation for a court date. Yakel said that officials are writing citations under California Penal Code section 602.4, which states that people offering “goods, merchandise, property, or services of any kind whatsoever” on airport property, without the airport's permission, are guilty of a misdemeanor. Yakel told Ars that he didn't know how high the fine for such a misdemeanor might be.

Re:In this case, its pure extortion

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Metro Airport in Detroit has a similar scam going on. They built a fancy new parking structure about 20 years ago.

Now, like many airports, they had private parking places, long-term, off site, that dropped off customers and picked them up. However, their own. new place, being unable to compete (rage as you hear this, shocked, shocked you are) passed a law slapping a 30% tax on them.

This exactly demonstrates government in action w.r.t. efficiency, and what isn't supposed to happen in a free country. Private business isn't supposed to be able to use law to hinder the competition, much less government businesses.

Oh, hotels nearby frequently had outstate people drive in, spend the night, then fly out leaving their cars in the hotel lots as a bonus. The airport outlawed this, too. This is the kind of BS context in which the nearby city of Detroit is going bankrupt.

Re:In this case, its pure extortion

[Mathinker]

> There could be a variety of different things that [airport police] would be looking for to see if there's a rideshare transaction,” Yakel explained.

That sounds great. Guess what's going to happen when the rideshare drivers stop right outside the airport to receive their payment and conceal their rideshare company logos/paraphernalia? "We have to put in license plate readers/etc./etc. to detect illegal rideshare drivers... think of the flying children!"

Re:In this case, its pure extortion

[dywolf]

Legal defense: he is a friend and I was giving him a ride. Prove I wasn't. Or mandate all airport customers must use taxis, effectively making the airport property line a border that only registered taxis can cross, no private citizens who aren't flying passenger*. Til then...we're "friends" and the burden of proof is on you.

*And as soon as they do, the property adjacent becomes valuable as a drop off location, and rideshare operates right up to the line, and then the Airport gets ticked and demands that property be given them and cycle repeats....

Re:In this case, its pure extortion

[TWiTfan]

This exactly demonstrates corrupt government in action

FTFY. Not all government action is a scam perpetrated by corrupt scumbags. This may be hard to believe in Detroit, but there are actually towns in the U.S. where the city government actually works FOR the people, and isn't just populated by thieves and their friends and relatives.

Re:In this case, its pure extortion

[MindStalker]

I think they do have a case on the whole

offering “goods, merchandise, property, or services of any kind whatsoever” on airport property

If you are taking advantage of airport property to make money, I can certainly see the argument for the airport to make money for your making money on their property, same as if I setup a vending stand on airport property.

Re:In this case, its pure extortion

[pla]

In fairness, the scam doesn't come from the taxi companies themselves. Make no mistake, they gladly take advantage of the government imposed restriction of competition, but in some regards they count as victims here just as much as the rest of us.

The real criminals here? In NYC (which has pretty solid published numbers), guess who sells those licenses to operate 13,237 cabs at a million bucks a pop? That literally comes out to NYC pulling in slightly more than my entire state's budget, just to keep cab fares high - And still doesn't count the extra special taxes they ding you for at certain "trapped people nowhere near other ground transportation" sites, such as airports.

Yes, the government should absolutely require more stringent car inspections and driver background checks to keep passengers safe. No, that doesn't cost a million bucks a pop. Yet another bullshit tax disguised as a service.

Re:In this case, its pure extortion

[bws111]

Uh, yeah. Like some guy who just paid you to take him to the airport is going to commit perjury in a court of law by stating he is actually your friend, and that the ride was not a business transaction. Good luck with that.

And you last line is equally as ridiculous. "OK, I can take you to just outside the airport propery. You can just walk the last half mile with your luggage (and, oh yeah, you will be walking on the highway). That's OK, right?"

Re:In this case, its pure extortion

[frinkster]

It's all about the money. The SF airport officials want their cut of the fares and are bullying the rideshare cabs to get it.

Yes, it is all about the money and no, it's not pure extortion. I don't know if you've noticed, but it costs a lot of money to build an airport and it costs a lot of money to run an airport. Some of that money comes from general taxes that all people pay, but most of the money comes from charging fees to users of the airport.

Everybody that uses the airport pays a fee. The airlines who use the airport to run a business, the airline passengers who use the airport to travel, the taxi drivers who use the airport to run a business, the livery service drivers who use the airport to run a business, the concessionaires who use the airport to run a business. Privately owned vehicles driven by private owners have always been exempted because they are just ancillary to getting the paying airline passengers to and from the airport.

These new "ridesharing" services are attempting to be private individuals when it suits them best and businessmen when it suits them best. SFO is calling them out on their BS and rightly so. If the "ridesharing" services win, the next step will be to either put a toll booth at the entrance and make everyone pay, or increase the general taxes so everyone pays. They will get their money.

Re:In this case, its pure extortion

[operagost]

Legal defense: he is a friend and I was giving him a ride. Prove I wasn't

I don't think this works for prostitution, either.

Re:In this case, its pure extortion

[dgatwood]

offering “goods, merchandise, property, or services of any kind whatsoever” on airport property

Only if the airport owns the street. If so, it should be immediately removed from all maps because it is not a public street and does not qualify for inclusion.

Re:In this case, its pure extortion

[MindStalker]

Plenty of private streets are on the map. Either way, look at google maps of any airport, You will see where the yellow color of the street ends. That is the end of the "public street". If you want to provide a driving service to drop passengers off on the public street as close to the airport as you can there is nothing the airport can do (though I'm sure they would be upset anyways). They charging them with trespassing because they are using the airports private driveways to make money. Imagine if you were running an airline charter service and just decided to land on their landing strip without paying them. They do allow free of charge the ability for the general public to enter the airport free of charge because they realize it would hurt their business to do otherwise. But they reserve the right to forbid any business looking to make a profit off them from entering their private driveways.

Re:In this case, its pure extortion

[EverlastingPhelps]

It is extortion, and here's where they are playing with fire -- they don't enjoy qualified immunity regarding the arrests like the police do, so as soon as someone beats one of these "citations", then the airport and the individual are liable for damages in a lawsuit by the falsely accused person.

Re:In this case, its pure extortion

[Anonymous Coward]

Up the stakes then. Payment up front so they don't ever see a transaction. Take the mustache off for airport drop-offs.

What they're suggesting is that if a friend drops me off at the airport and I slip them a $20 for gas money as a thankyou then I've broken the law. Tell me again why this isn't fuckwittery and extortion?

Re:In this case, its pure extortion

[nitehawk214]

Nowhere did GP say that all government is corrupt. But he did show an example of how Detroit's government is corrupt, and thus why it is a complete failure.

Closing car pool lanes too?

[dutchwhizzman]

How are they going to handle car pooling or more than a single occupant in a car? Are they going to close car pool lanes? Are they going to prohibit cars to have more than one seat? What will happen to the environmental targets they have set if they won't allow people to share a car?

Re:Closing car pool lanes too?

[Zironic]

As long as you don't charge money the goverment will never confuse you with a taxi, don't worry.

Re:Er what

[Rockoon]

Taxi licenses cost big money

The price for taxi medallions is based on supply and demand. The supply is artificially low precisely because thats what the medallion owners continually petition the regulators for.

So no, do not feel sorry for the fucking taxi owners. Feel sorry for every consumer thats been fucked by them so far, and every consumer that will be fucked by them in the future.

Re:Er what

[JakartaDean]

IMO you've got it backwards. The licenses ("shields" or "medallions") cost so much because they're a licence to print money once acquired. In NYC "corporate" medallions have sold for over $1 million. They sell for that much because the owner can get a better return on his investment than he can investing it in other ways, adjusted for risk. Medallion owners tend to play municipal politics well, to protect their investment. They also fool the public into feeling sorry for them. Please don't fall for it.

Re:Er what...Pre-conviction

[Rockoon]

It's not just a form of unionization. It means the state has verified that this practitioner has completed certain education, in some professions has posted a bond, and in many professions must continue to complete ongoing annual education from... licensed teachers in the field.

You seem to not have much of a clue about taxi licenses.

You can complete that education, have the funds available to post that bond, and be willing to continue to complete annual education from "licensed teachers in the field" but you still arent going to get a fucking taxi license unless you buy a license from an existing license owner.

In the taxi world, licenses are PROPERTY. Welcome to reality.

Re:Er what

[Rockoon]

Taxi owners do not want a free market.

Taxi drivers probably do, but not the owners.

Re:Citizens arrest??

[N1AK]

what. so eating your own sandwich in a mcdonalds is a felony? what the fuck 'murica, what the fuck.

See what I don't understand is that this is actually real 'freedom' which apparently is what America is supposed to be all about and you seem to like. If I own some land then I should be entitled to set conditions for using it, as a free person you are entitled to choose to use my land or not given the conditions and by doing so agree to the terms.

Unless you're suggesting that 'freedom' is that you can own land but can't stop people coming onto it and doing whatever the fuck they want ;)

Obviously being from virtually communist Europe we have these silly little regulations that limit the kind of things you are allowed to put into contracts. That may not be true 'freedom' but it seems to work ok.

Re:Er what

[N1AK]

Then why don't taxi drivers instead do the same, forgo licensing and other fees and offer their services at the same level?

Or do the opposite and justify a price premium. The problem atm is that all the things you pay a taxi more for, vs one of these firms, apparently aren't worth the money for many, many, people. The fucked up medallion system many US cities/regions used is a truly awful way to operate.

Re:Citizens arrest??

[EzInKy]

Being that women can cum dozens of times in a single session and men only three or so, your lack of ability would only be seen as normal to most.

Re:Why?

[philip.paradis]

You're absolutely right. This is nothing more than an organized shakedown operation, and under color of (corrupt) law at that. Also, obligatory link for those who might have missed the reference.

Re:Citizens arrest??

[fahrbot-bot]

what. so eating your own sandwich in a McDonald's is a felony?

Obviously not, but McDonald's is private property and they could certainly ask you to leave or get arrested for trespassing.

To quote Steven Wright:

I got kicked out of a theater the other day for bringing my own food in. I argued that the concession stand prices were outrageous. Besides, I hadn't had a barbecue in a long time.

Nothing to do with safety

[hebertrich]

Taxi cab companies buy contracts at airports ( at least in Canada ) , to be there the cab companies pay for it.
That is why the airport is teed off . If they get less rides the taxi companies can turn around and say " not worth it " and deal a lower price.
It's got nothing to do with safety . It's ( yet again ) the almighty dollar talking.

Taxi Driving maybe not... Taxi Companies are.

[Firethorn]

Driving a cab might not have been a big business where you were, but consider NYC, where a medallion costs well over $1M at this point. The interest on the loan to buy the medallion pretty much dwarfs any other costs -car, gas, etc...

Taxi drivers enjoy legal semi-monopolies. It's sold to the public that it ensures that they will be picked up(despite being black), get a safe vehicle(despite pretty much all vehicles being safe today), with enough legroom and a 'professional' driver.

The problem comes in that, as a consumer, if there's enough taxis they'll have to pick up non-optimal customers(black) anyways, as a consumer I can look at the vehicle and refuse to use it if it's old, dirty, whatever(and being a licensed taxi company doesn't prevent this), and as the complaints elsewhere in the thread show, getting a 'professional' driver is still something of a crapshoot.

Ergo I see the regulations costing me a lot, but giving me little, thus I object to them.

Too late

[epSos-de]

Welcome to the future. The smartest taxi drivers will use ride sharing services to eliminate their down time. The others will get broke.

Re:Too late

[dywolf]

most taxi drivers/companies already do use some form f itnerent reservations or matching, or whatever.

thing is, they dont run the taxi stand at the airport.

the airport does.
the guy running the stand at the airport, directing you to a cab, works for the airport.

and he ensures (usually) that everything is kept fair for the multiple cab companies with contracts to serve the airport by ensuring that passengers go to the first cab in line (first in, first out, fromt eh drivers perspective), so no one cab company (with contract) can claim favortism or unfairness (contract breach). the exception being reserved rides (calling ahead for a cab while walking through the airport), in which case you pay an extra fee anyway, to compensate the cabby for sitting there waiting on you, and letting other potential fares walk on by.

Re:Too late

[RockDoctor]

ensures (usually) that everything is kept fair for the multiple cab companies with contracts to serve the airport

I don't understand this concept of "multiple cab companies" at an airport. What happened to the good old monopoly as a tool for gouging customers? Good enough for Julius Caesar and Crassus ; good enough for me!

Re:Yes, citizens arrest...for trespassing

[Darinbob]

It's San Francisco, laws are optional there. On the streets generally everyone follows the traffic rules of his or her country of origin. Except for share the road day, when it is forbidden to use an automobile under penalty of being vandalized.

Re:Er what

[Darinbob]

There is nothing new here. This is just a plain old fashioned taxi business that is bypassing rules and regulations in order to save money. The fact that smart phone apps are used is not at all important, it's essentially no different from using a phone to call for a taxi.

Re:Er what...Pre-conviction

[Darinbob]

This is administered by the California Public Utilities Commission, same group that oversees electricity and gas companies (and doesn't always do that job well either). This is not at all the same thing as NYC where you need medallions. Now maybe there are some cities serving SFO that do have such rules, but SFO is served by many cities and counties.

It's simple

[viperidaenz]

The Taxi companies are threatening the Airport that they will stop paying airport taxi fees unless the airport does something about their competition.

Re:Er what

[Darinbob]

Sort of irrelevant, since so few people use taxis anymore, except in New York. In San Francisco you can't even find a taxi if you want one, so everyone uses municipal transportation. You gotta be nuts to take a taxi to the airport anyway when all the other options are cheaper.

Re:Er what

[viperidaenz]

Its also illegal in some places to drive passengers around for money unless you have the correct drivers license endorsement.

It's why taxi drivers in New Zealand drive so slow - even with no passenger to charge, a speeding ticket can lose them their endorsement, effectively losing their job.

Re:Its about money - Just money

[Darinbob]

These are democracies. Show up at board meetings, gather petition signatures, get elected to office, etc. Lots of options to try before pretending that the laws don't exist. If the laws really are unjust then it shouldn't be hard to get more people on your side to help overturn them.

None of the airport's business

[bradley13]

How a passenger arrives at the airport - by bicycle, by train , by rideshare or by stork - is simply none of their business as long as it is not disruptive. From the airport's perspective, there is no difference between a taxi and a rideshare, so claiming that the rideshare is "trespassing" is absurd.

Of course, the regulatory capture by taxi companies is the real, underlying issue here. There is no reason to restrict who can take another person in their car; this is an arrangement for services between consenting adults, and none of the government's business.

Re:None of the airport's business

[pbhj]

Airports are private land aren't they. So why [legally] can't they decide who to allow access to (within the bounds of discrimination laws and such of course)?

Re:None of the airport's business

[pthisis]

From the airport's perspective, there is no difference between a taxi and a rideshare, so claiming that the rideshare is "trespassing" is absurd.

From an airport's perspective there's a big difference: licensed cabs and limos pay a $4 airport fee for each pickup, which results in millions of dollars in revenues for them each year. Every unlicensed cab/limo that picks someone up in their place is money they don't get.

Re:None of the airport's business

[gsslay]

It is the business of the city/state. A company is operating on the city's roads what is effectively public transport without having to conform to any of the regulations intended to make public transport safe. Dressing it up as "sharing" with "donations" is playing with words in a transparent attempt to disguise what is occurring.

this is an arrangement for services between consenting adults

No its not. It is arrangement between a company, which knows exactly what laws it is attempting to circumvent, what risks are being taken, and an adult who may not. The purpose of regulations are to protect you from situations like that.

If I set up a child care business without any care for the regulations, and called it a "child share" funded by donations, would that be ok? How is this different from being a passenger in the back seat of one of these cars? You have no idea of the driver's abilities, no idea of their insurance, no idea of the car's safety. At least with a taxi you have some reassurance.

Re:None of the airport's business

[bradley13]

It is the business of the city/state. A company is operating on the city's roads what is effectively public transport without having to conform to any of the regulations intended to make public transport safe.

It's a car. Cars are already subject to inspections to ensure safety. A passenger is a passenger, whether or not they pay for the ride. The only possible difference is one of liability insurance, which is between the driver and their auto insurance company.

If I set up a child care business without any care for the regulations, and called it a "child share" funded by donations, would that be ok? ... You have no idea of the driver's abilities, no idea of their insurance, no idea of the car's safety. At least with a taxi you have some reassurance.

Comparing child care to a taxi ride? That's sort of like comparing nuclear warheads to firecrackers. Let's stick to the topic, shall we?

As mentioned above, basic traffic safety is already assured through vehicle inspections. For a taxi ride I can read online reviews, I can ask to see your current insurance papers, I can decide whether you look reputable and sober. Their are only two reasons that governments get involved in taxi licensing:

1. The government can collect fees, so they have more money to spend. Wow, a new source of income that doesn't require voter approval, more slops for the trough.
2. Large taxi companies can more easily afford the fees, so they happily use them as a way of preventing competition. It's even better if only a limited number of taxi medallions are allowed - then the competition is really screwed

In short: government involvement adds nothing of value to taxi services.

Re:None of the airport's business

[dywolf]

private land, and the owner gets paid by the taxi companies for them to operate on that land, the same as the restruants and book do for the priviledge of operating inside. this is reasonable.

the rideshares, if operated for profit, arent really rideshares, and are really unlicensed cap companies, simply using modern tech. it is reasonable to hold such a company up to the same standards and regulations then.

the sticking issue for me is two fold:
1) Enforcement. Im not sure the airport authority has the authority to be making these citations and arrests; it should be actual Law Enforcement (keeping in mind that different airports have different relations with the local city, and in some of them, it IS actual cops; in others, it isnt). The charges also I think would have to be limited to trespassing, as in most places it isnt the police that enforce cab company rules (to my knowledge), that being done by a different section of the local government.
2) Determination of sharing or unlicensed cab company. IE, you have to prove it actually is a for profit unlicensed cab company, and not just a friend helping out a friend (or freind of a friend). And given how easy the modern internet makes it to reach out and get help from random strangers, it becomes very difficult to prove it isnt legitimate ride sharing. People have posted ont hings like Yelp or Craiglist or Citypages about needing a ride from the airport for years, being willing to chip in for gas, and then people who are in teh area or live nearby or whatever, have been helping them out, again, for years. It's legitimate helping behaviour, akin to folks who run open wifi's for their neighborhood. But that also doesnt mean all the people are liek that, and there arent for profit companies or groups that are essentially unlicensed cabbies.

As for the cab companies being dinosaurs, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxis at the airport operate.

its important to remember that the taxi stand is not operated by the cab companies. If you've ever been to the airport, you know that the drivers show up and its a first come first serve system, regardless of company. The man at the airport who runs the stand and directs you to the next available cab doesnt work for the cab companies, but for the airport. I say it again: the cab stand (think "matchmaking" at the curb) is run by the airport itself. so its not the companies that need to modernize (many of them already DO use internet reservations, or whatever), but the airport. And because the airport has contracts with a dozen or more taxi companies, they have cabbies line up in the order they arrived at the airport, and assign passengers to them on a first in first out basis.

Re:None of the airport's business

[dywolf]

his point was about interpretation of the laws.

if i watch my neighbors kids when they get home from school, until the parents themselves get home from work, is it a child care? most places, no, just a helpful neighbor.

but what if i start watching everyones kids?
what if they chip in a few bucks to pay for snacks I might give them?

(and this was a real case in PA, where a mother whos house was the bus stop would watch the kids while they waited for the bus in the morning, and when they got off it in the afternoon until the parents got off work; int he end the town backed of because of bad press, and the fact she wasnt doing it for money)

Re:Er what

[sFurbo]

It is not ultimately any current taxi drivers fault their industry is regulated

They could stop lobbying for more regulation, that would make what you say far more convincing.

and the regulation is there mostly to protect consumers.

The regulation is often there to limit competition to ensure higher prices for the established players. The excuse is consumer protection, and the original intent might have been consumer protection, but in the cases I am familiar with, the effect is always to make it extremely expensive or impossible to expand the number of cabs on the street, which makes no sense in light of consumer protection, but makes perfect sense as a way to drive up prices.

Blah

[benjfowler]

Rent-seekers of the world unite!!

Land of the Free?

[fullback]

Yeah, right. And home of the brave who tolerate this, huh?

Re:Land of the Free?

[MachineShedFred]

Well, the brave are the ones that continue to operate their service in the face of an oppressive government. So, yes.

You sir just mentioned 1% of all products

[cheekyboy]

Your example is just 1% of all industries.

Regulations protecting stupid crickets in a field are stupid, that prevent people building a fence or solar panels, yet at the same time they increase the levels of safe radiation after Fukashima.

easy solution

[cheekyboy]

Get the govt to create a military check point at the point were you have to go through the paid doors, and the military for safety reasons will require an open free gate with zero obstruction, then inform the guards, to let all people through for free, as they have guns and have more power than regulations or airport security.

Re:easy solution

[Zironic]

The Swedish Millitary is forbidden by law to interfere in civilian matters ever since a protest got bloody about 80 years ago.

hahahahah, yeah likely chance

[cheekyboy]

If its passed to the hand in cash, its a 'gift' as was the car ride, thats a gift, and if gifts are taxed, then the cash in the hand is a loan.

If there is no electronic trail or photos, it DIDNT REALLY HAPPEN!

In most cases, the tax man is really the Bank Owners in Europe, since most of folks income taxes go directly to the banks as interest payments to US debt.

So a message to you girls and guys, if that prospective partner you meet at a club is a tax worker, dont go out with them, let them be the only people to not get a date or partner.

yay!

[Lumpy]

Because we are so much safer paying a taxi $55 for the ride to the hotel and then the expected $20 tip.

monopoly

[webdragon]

To me it sounds like the taxi drivers unions*if there is one* are worried their monopoly is being threatened.

uh...

[Charliemopps]

The one time someone said to me: "I'm placing you under citizens arrest"
My reply was "Go fuck yourself"
and when the police showed up, it wasn't me that got carted off to jail.
People need to learn about their rights.

Re:uh...

[intermodal]

It's important to know your rights. Every time someone doesn't know them and/or willingly allows those rights to be violated, they hurt everyone else's rights. That's why we're to the point where refusing a search looks like "probable cause" in the eyes of so many people.

Re:uh...

[phorm]

So what was the "Citizen's arrest" for?

As always

[nospam007]

'...have the right to question drivers,â if they see anything that appears to indicate ridesharing...'

Don'talk to the police, ever! It can only hurt you.
'

There's regulation and then there's protectionism

[FuzzNugget]

Regulation certainly has important uses: it keeps your house from burning down, makes you safer in car accidents and ensures that your food is clean and properly prepared.

But this is mostly self-protectionism by the taxi industry. Ride sharing is basically "accelerated friend making" for the purposes of carpooling. Any claim that it's unsafe because its unregulated is more or less bullocks. It's maybe a matter of service quality, but that should really a choice left made up to the customer, shouldn't it?

Re:Citizens arrest??

[MachineShedFred]

Trespass is a misdemeanor, so no.

Re:Er what

[MachineShedFred]

and your naked corpse found in the remotest part of California.

But I don't want to go to Redding! Stupid taxi driver never listens.

Re:There's regulation and then there's protectioni

[shilly]

"Any claim that it's unsafe because its unregulated is more or less bullocks."

How do you know this? And what are you claiming? That regulations don't make taxis safer than unregulated alternatives? Or that ridesharing is de facto regulated? The latter appears to have at least some plausibility, as the big rideshare firms are in the process of agreeing terms with the authorities, but as for the former...I just don't know where you would have that evidence from.

Most of the requirements of the SF MTA seem pretty self-evidently good things to me:
(1) You must be a legal resident of the United States. GOOD, cuts flight risk if there's a crime or accident
(2) Be clean in dress and person. GOOD, although clearly more honoured in the breach than the observance.
(3) Be free of any disease, condition, infirmity, or addiction that might render the applicant unable to safely operate a motor vehicle or that otherwise poses a risk to public health and safety. GOOD. I do not want to be driven by someone with a contagious airborne disease.
(4) CA Driver's License. GOOD. I obviously want someone who can meet this minimal safe driving standard.
(5) Able to Drive 4+ Hours. GOOD. I don't want to be driven by someone who makes errors through exhaustion.
(6) Have no prior convictions of a crime that would, in the judgment of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), present a risk to public safety if the permit is granted, including but not limited to convictions involving sexual assault, the use of a vehicle in the commission of a felony, fraud, violence against a person, reckless disregard for public safety, two or more recent convictions of drug-related offenses, or two or more recent convictions of driving under the influence within the previous five years, whether or not such convictions occurred while driving a Motor Vehicle for Hire. GOOD. It's not a perfect filter, but we don't live in a perfect world, and it cuts risks significantly.
(7) Have attained the age of 21. GOOD. Younger drivers are more dangerous.
(8) Speak, read and write the English language. GOOD. I need to be able to communicate to the driver effectively.

Which of these requirements don't matter to you? Is it really your position that none of them is important (or at least, none bar the possession of a drivers' license?)

To change the rules?

[bradley13]

The best way to get rules changed is to refuse to follow them. Done right, this sparks a discussion of whether the rules are sensible or not. There's really no other way to do it. The government put these rules into place, and will not want to spend time reviewing or changing them. They have to be pressured into doing so, and that's exactly what is happening.

It is a very important responsibility of any citizen is to disobey senseless regulations. When you are called on one, invest the time in your society by fighting to have the regulation knocked down.

It is a safety matter

[Roger W Moore]

The taxi drivers assert that this is a safety matter.

They are correct - it is a matter of keeping their jobs safe.

Safer - but at what cost?

[Firethorn]

I know the technology existed, but the one thing the article lacks was 'how much'? Thanks to the regulations today it's actually harder than it should be to tell the safer cars out, but it is one of my shopping points.

Attila (another replyer) made a good point - 'if you can't afford a car w/airbags, you don't get a car'. I can't help but think that all the airbags and extra safety features today are proportionally cheaper.

The new 'Merica

[suprcvic]

Using the governments ability to threaten violence in order to protect your job security. 'Merica.

legalized monopoly?

[sageres]

I once was talking to a cabbie who told me that in order to get into a cab business one has to have a medallion that cost over a million dollars. And only those people own cab companies. Also city prevents any other companies from registering there. Cab companies reminds me of a mob. Their services truly suck (especially in the city of Washington DC), cabs are smelly, they overcharge, airconditioner on hot day never works and on top of that the drivers are rude and hardly speak any English! And on top of that now we are told they are out there to get to the community-shared ridership companies?

Re:There's regulation and then there's protectioni

[sageres]

Speak read and write the English language

Ahem... You've never seen a cabbie whose response on "take me to Rockaways" is a dumbfounded look. That's when you open up a dictionary and say, "Mujhe Rockaway Beach aura Amstel le chahiyeh" which is met with a loud praise that you can speak Hindi very well.

Re:There's regulation and then there's protectioni

[chocolatetrumpet]

I don't think anyone minds these requirements, but, the number of licenses available should not be restricted. New licenses should be made available to anyone who meets the qualifications.

DIY

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

DIY

I hate to say it.... BUT..

[bobbied]

If somebody is getting paid to pickup and/or drop off folks at the airport, they are in business. If you are in business, you are subject to the rules and regulations that apply to the business. If you are dropping off or picking up a friend and not doing this for money but for your friend, you are NOT in business, even if your friend is covering your expenses.

The dividing line is if you are making a profit or being paid for your time.

SO... If you are trolling around the airport or online in hopes of finding somebody who will pay you more than what it costs you to haul them someplace, you are in business and should be in compliance with all laws for that business. If you are just offering to share an empty seat for a share of expenses, you are NOT running a business and don't need to worry about it.

Now how anybody would KNOW you where making a profit or not is the question. The issue at SFO is that some "operators" are trying to profit from the online crowd sourced ride share aps and have pushed far enough to make it way to obvious what they are doing. So obvious in fact that the Taxi driver waiting for his fares has started to complain about the same car showing up at the airport multiple times a day for days on end, picking up and dropping off passengers.

It seems that somebody was running a business, complete with having distinctive markings on their cars so folks could recognize them, but they where NOT complying with the rules that governed the Taxi/Limo business. Where I admire their capitalist efforts, the laws are what they are and you need to follow them even if you don't like them.

Now this citizen's arrest thing is just wacky, but You don't want to tick off the Taxi drivers you fools... If you'd just kept it low key and low volume it might have gone unnoticed, but you are no longer under the radar. Time to comply with the law or stop.

Re:I hate to say it.... BUT..

[Skapare]

Sorry, but I don't agree with your dividing line. IMHO, even if you just accept payment for expenses, it is still acting like a business. Many businesses operate for a long time making not money. What I think the dividing line is, is whether you already know the people whom you are sharing the seat for. Maybe 2 degrees but that's the max. You need to be doing it as a favor for family and friends for it to be not covered by regulations. It would be the same for cutting hair where regulations cover barbers, etc. Doing it for family and friends w/o pay is OK. For everyone else or for pay, the regulations kick in. The one exception I'd accept is doing it in protest when something is wrong with the regulations.

Re:I hate to say it.... BUT..

[bobbied]

I don't agree, mainly because your line is not a clear one, where mine is. If you are making a profit, clearly it's a business, friends in the seats or not.

If you intend to protest a law by breaking it, you had better be ready for the fines and/or jail time that come your way. Remember, in a civil society we have the right to ask for the law to be changed, peacefully protest until they get changed and vote for those who will change them, but we don't have the right to break laws we don't agree with.

Re:I hate to say it.... BUT..

[thejynxed]

Actually, it's our civic duty to disobey unjust laws. That's one of the very definitions of civil disobedience.

I am not advocating full scale riots mind you....

Re:I hate to say it.... BUT..

[bobbied]

Civic duty? Um... Are you suggesting that laws that govern Taxi/Limos in San Francisco are "unjust" ?

I think that civil disobedience is over practiced and under justified as a rule. My point is that if you disobey the law, you should be ready to accept the punishment that comes from disobeying the law. If it is worth it to you, and you think it helps you make your point, go ahead and get arrested. If the law is unjust, and you got arrested for violating it, you then have standing to appeal and get the law ruled unjust by the courts. But I would suggest that you petition your elected representatives to get the "unjust" law changed first. It might save you and the police a lot of trouble.

Out civic duty is to get unjust laws changed. Civil disobedience is at the bottom of the "things to try first" when trying to get a law changed, at the very bottom.

Re:Citizen Arrest

[gdek]

I so wish I had mod points for you.

Re:False Arrest

[Skapare]

Exceptions should exist for dropping off or picking up family, friends, and maybe in some cases, business associates. In most cities, taxi/limo regulations exist to ensure that the service is conducted and provided safely. In cases where the regulations are locking out competition (that otherwise can meet all the requirements for safety like everyone else does), then that is wrong. But that is its own issue to be addressed. if a given city has regulations that are unfair or not uniformly enforced, then address THAT.

Re:Taxi Driving maybe not... Taxi Companies are.

[jklovanc]

What about the regulation that requires a certain number of cars to be on the road at all times. It may be helpful when looking for a cab on a dark and stormy night when the ride share drivers are safe at home. Since the ride share drivers have driven the full time taxi drivers out of business I guess you would be out of luck.

What about the regulation that requires cab companies to provide wheel chair accessible vehicles with trained drivers?

as a consumer I can look at the vehicle and refuse to use it if it's old, dirty, whatever(and being a licensed taxi company doesn't prevent this)

It doesn't prevent bad cabs but a few complaints to the taxi commission and the car gets re-inspected and/or the license pulled.

Yet another reason...

[ltwally]

Yet another reason that I'm glad that I do not live in California. Because apparently, somehow, every civilian has what amounts to very nearly full arrest powers in California. Yeah... That couldn't go terribly wrong or be abused.

837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/

Re:Er what...Pre-conviction

[Rockoon]

This is administered by the California Public Utilities Commission, same group that oversees electricity and gas companies (and doesn't always do that job well either). This is not at all the same thing as NYC where you need medallions.

You are making the baseless claim that there isnt an artificially limited number of taxi's in SF which reality does not agree with. Its more like New York than ever before, including medallions.

"Under the original permitting setup, drivers who wanted to become medallion holders were placed on a waitlist for the turnover of one of 1,500 medallions in circulation. In most cases, it took decades for a coveted permit to become available and drivers only had to pay $1,600."

One has to wonder what any of your statements are worth, on any subject, when you blatantly lie about reality and defend tyranny on this subject.

Re:Er what...Pre-conviction

[Darinbob]

San Francisco airport does not restrict itself to allowing only San Francisco licensed cabs. The CPUC doesn't do medallions, but some cities may do this. However not all cities and counties that have taxis serving SFO do this.

Re:Er what...Pre-conviction

[Maxo-Texas]

Yes-- and some cows are so muscular that they require a C-Section to give birth.

Medallions are required in a few cities. San Francisco has them but sale of medallions was prohibited in Prop K several decades ago.

Medallions in San Francisco are non transferable. When the current holder can't drive 800 hours a year, the medallion goes back to the city and goes to the next person on the list. The list is long and it usually takes until a person is 40 before they get one.

Sf had a small pilot program recently on selling a small number of medallions- not sure how legally- it wasn't in the article.

So your clue on SF was wrong. But now you know.

Sad thing is we are in agreement on some of this issue. It is a bit of a cartel in those four cities- just like doctors else where (due to closing of medical schools).

You left out the unlawful coercion part

[Camael]

SFO thinks ridesharing companies should pay its fees. Fair enough, so SFO should sue them and recover the monies.

What they are not entitled to do, is to apply illegal coercion/pressure on the ridesharing companies by arresting their drivers. Take note that the TFA makes it clear that their officers have no powers of arrest, which is why they had to resort to the charade of making 'citizen arrests'. You might also question why, if it is the California Penal Code they claim was breached, they are taking action themselves instead of handing it over to the police.

Lets see how extortion is defined :-

extortion [ik-stawr-shuhn] noun

The crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.

Oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest.

I think its pretty clear SFO has abused their authority by making the arrests. Their actions are pretty much unprecedented anywhere in the US, or in the world for that matter.

Bribery and Corruption via regulation

[gnimblingpin]

Taxi medallions are one of the classic pay to play schemes. Competition is eliminated, customer satisfaction and service is reduced, and prices are fixed.