Slashdot Mirror
Lyft's New York Launch Halted By Restraining Order
Forbes reports that Lyft's planned expansion into the New York market has been delayed by a restraining order. The article explains that State officials had asked Lyft to delay its launch. When Lyft refused, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office filed a temporary restraining order against the startup Friday morning to prevent its launch. Other statements said that the restraining order had been granted, though Simpson said that was untrue.
Lyft and officials will reconvene in court Monday for a hearing. Lyft will not launch until it has reached an agreement with the city, Simpson said.
Since Monday, when Lyft announced it was planning to launch in the two boroughs [of Queens and Brooklyn], the app has faced criticism from city officials. The taxi and limousine commission declared the app 'unauthorized' and said its riders were at risk and its drivers could be cited and fined if they were caught using it.
Lyft seems to have left riders mostly unscathed in Boston, where it's been operating since early last year, and in numerous other cities. Also at Ars Technica.
They should have offered a free 40oz soda to the first 100 riders.
If the USA is the bastion of freedom, capitalism and independence, why are cab licenses limited by city bureaucrats? Why not let everyone who qualifies swim in the taxicab business leaving those who cannot stand the waters perish? I just don't get it!
"The taxi and limousine commission declared the app 'unauthorized' and said its riders were at risk" I lived in NYC on and off for most of a decade and I can assure you that as a pedestrian the act of stepping into the street was a game of roulette and that yellow cabs were the greatest cause of un-safe living. I can hardly think of anything more hazardous for your health than for NYC to prop up a crony monopoly of yellow cars and all that comes with it. Continue to disrupt, fellow entrepreneurs!
I just don't get it!
Follow the money. Selling taxi medallions is a huge source of revenue and graft.
When is a 'startup' no longer a 'startup'?
low end job where if too many people go into it, a lot will lose money as supply outstrips demand
Otherwise known as, "regulation to keep the competition out".
It seems to me that the tendency to over-regulate in order to give advantage to existing market movers simply isn't justified. Yes, you need to deal with liability, but there's nothing that says that over-regulation is the only (or the best) way to do it.
Garbage bag filled streets, the smell of garbage, stupid bridge tolls just to get to Manhattan from the airport and rude people. Visiting NYC once was enough for me for a long time. Attention New Yorkers and New York bureaucrats, you are destroying your local economy with your idiotic short sightedness. Nobody wants to visit your city if you are going to make it a horrible experience.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The best corrective action is to find a candidate who understands the Technology Economy for each office, especially, executive offices like AG. Get them elected. Get the Governor to appoint young smart technology knowledgable people to commissions and move forward. The old white guys can either get on board or get out of the way.
I just don't get it!
Follow the money. Selling taxi medallions is a huge source of revenue and graft.
You are half right. Businesses LOVE government regulation and artificial limits because it restricts competition.
Incumbent businesses do NOT like free markets. They want the market free for THEM and only THEM.
Does anyone REALLY believe we live in a free market economy and a democracy?
We live in a crony capitalistic society with a monetaristic democracy - the more money you have, the more "votes" you have - thanks to Super PACS.
I just don't get it!
Citizens won't pay taxes to fund the things they want like roads, parks and sewer pipes, so city governments have to come up with alternate funding mechanisms such as hotel taxes and taxi medallions.
When alternate services like Airbnb and Lyft come along, that funding decreases - Rather than raise taxes or let potholes grow (and be turfed from office) they attack the services that are cutting into their revenue.
Are you kidding? The last guy who picked me up at LGA barely managed to communicate with me in Farsi -- neither my nor his native language, took the long way on the BQE to Williamsburg, then got lost-- fortunately, in the Hasidic sections (at least *I* would have been safe on the streets). Managed to rack up an extra $20 on the meter compared to a cab service while doing it, and drove in a manner that suggested he couldn't maintain a license in Mexico City.
Give me a Lyft driver anyday compared to the typical NYC borough cabbie.
It's all fun disrupting until dad loses his job. But seriously, I really don't understand why ppl like the new monopolies soo much. Uber, Lynch, ... whatever,all the same.
They take the business of companies that do the work while they just play the new middleman and take a ridiculously big cut.
For now, they use the suckers that want to work for them, until they can replace them with google cars or something like that.
I don't have any problem with the future or anything but don't act like they are the best thing since sliced bread! They don't bring anything to the table. Only a bigger monopoly.
And they even f*ck their workers.
Look at Uber. Did they refund the ppl that got their car impounded in Brussels or their car beaten in Paris?
That is true but the summary refers to Brooklyn and Queens, a.k.a. "outer boroughs" (anything that isn't Manhattan). The outer boroughs now have "Green Taxis" which do not bear medallions, and there are about 15,000 of them so far:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/shl_passenger.shtml
NYC also has "livery" cabs which can be summoned via phone, in contrast to "taxis" which are hailed on the street. Livery cabs don't bear medallions either.
The concerns about Lyft and Uber probably is more about the proper training and licensing of drivers, liability insurance coverage, adherance to laws (like non-discrimination in picking up passengers, and like fair labor practices). Not medallions.
Because historically taxis have engaged in a number of fraudulent and unsavory practices, outright racism in some cases and have generally made cities look bad. So there was a legitimate reason to regulate them in order to ensure that they didn't bilk (or take the long route) for gullible tourists, refuse rides to people of the wrong color, install fake meters, organize into a racket to overcharge customer or skip on carrying decent insurance.
Then, lo-and-behold, the well-meaning regulators were captured by the taxicabs (because they were smart) and turned around and instituted any number of illegitimate regulations designed to stifle competition. This is generally pretty easy in a democracy because when there's a small number of cabbies with a very large interest in certain policies, they can often get their way when there are a large number of citizens with contrary interests. It's the law of diffused costs versus concentrated benefits.
So now, instead of being predictably idiotic with our left/right pro/anti regulation, maybe we should think about stupid regulation versus smart regulation. Then we could distinguish a rule require cabbies to carry insurance for their passengers with one that limits the number of medallions to some artifical number. Or one that requires accurate metering of any form with one that requires a specific brand or type of metering. Or a law that requires cabbies to serve any part of the city with one that requires them to drive home from the airport empty instead of picking up a fare immediately after dropping one off (this one really I don't understand -- there is a line for cabs at the terminal!).
On the other hand, nah, let's just hurf about it....
So, I suppose Toad Suck Daze is out of the question too...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toad_Suck_Daze
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
maybe we should think about stupid regulation versus smart regulation
YES thankyou for saying this, you are amazing. Everytime I hear someone engaging in an argument saying, "regulation is bad!" "no, regulation is good!" I hang my head in wonder at the stupidity involved. Couldn't it possibly be that there are some good regulations, and some bad regulations, and that the wise choice is to both oppose and favor regulations at the same time?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Thank you for some insight!
But no, we can't post anything that might hurt the feelings of both the left and right. Much better to make one happy and one miserable. Who cares if the truth is in the middle?
Because historically, the response to unfettered competition in New York City involved bodies floating in the East River. Either the city 'manages' the market using regulation or Vinnie and Guido do it with steel pipes.
Have gnu, will travel.
It's rather the opposite. When people take a cab, they don't take a car, and won't spend time driving around looking for a parking space.
Having enough taxicabs also reduces the amount of drink driving, which is a serious problem here in the US.
And you free up parking lots and parking garages, which can be used for other infrastructure, which reduces the need to travel even more.
I've lived in cities with plenty of taxis, and I've lived in cities with next to none. The cities that had a surplus of taxis also had the least amount of traffic problems.
London has around twice as many taxicabs as New York City, for a comparable population size. Other European cities have an even higher ratio of taxis per citizens, with a 1:100 ratio not being uncommon. And those cities have the least amount of problems with automobile traffic too.
1) Do you really want two-ton land missiles driven by desperate people who are driven to cut corners to stay competitive?
2) More generally, as you noted, a competitive market is a swim-or-sink situation. That means profit margins will get razor-thin. That sounds awesome until you realize that wages are also a form of profits. In other words, a competitive market is good for customers and horrible for everyone else in it. This is the reason why people have so much debt: the entire economy has become a "competitive market" where those participating in it - employees - barely survive, no matter how much it produces. So of course anyone who can tries to use whatever leverage they can to make any markets they're competing in less efficient. It's the only way to avoid starving.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
1) Do you really want two-ton land missiles driven by desperate people who are driven to cut corners to stay competitive?
You mean like taxicab drivers? No. We should do away with them immediately.
More generally, as you noted, a competitive market is a swim-or-sink situation. That means profit margins will get razor-thin. That sounds awesome until you realize that wages are also a form of profits.
So your argument against permitting people to hire their services is that it will threaten others' wages? Congratulations, you just cast your vote for no progress ever. Please move back into a cave, and give up your PC.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
But besides that, it's okay.
I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
No, people have so much debt because they insist on buying things they can't afford. No, you really don't NEED a Tesla. Or even a new car. A five-year-old used car will do fine. Nor do you NEED the latest tech toy. Etc, etc, etc.
Now, admittedly, Fed policy with regard to the Housing Bubble (basically, pump money into the economy until the height of the bubble is the new normal) has driven housing prices to nearly unsustainable levels, at least till the inflation in housing prices spreads more generally through the economy over the next five years or so.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Whether a driver and a passenger decide to hook up and drive around together via an app should be nobody's business. Attempting to regulate this is just an attempt by entrenched special interests and their cronies in city government to block competition. Kick these jerks out next election.
I'm pretty sure the "regulation is good" crowd are only talking about good regulations. They are not an equal and opposite side to the libertarians who are not simply against bad regulations but all regulations. (Except for the ones that they feel protect them personally.)
The American dream was the idea that equal under the law individuals could pursue their own happiness on their own terms, where apart from regulating criminal conduct, government wouldn't have any authority to stop the individuals from attempting to build their own lives and businesses the way they saw fit.
Granted, things weren't so great if you were non-white*, didn't own land, or lacked a penis... But aside from that huge majority of the population everyone was treated equally.
*including those dirty Irish.
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
So your argument against permitting people to hire their services is that it will threaten others' wages? Congratulations, you just cast your vote for no progress ever. Please move back into a cave, and give up your PC.
There was no logic in that statement whatsoever.
So do you agree with me? Because you seem to be saying the same thing I did: employees, in an efficient market, can't afford anything beyond they NEED - in other words, they're just barely surviving. Which is only natural, seeing how "sellers barely survive" is the very definition of economic efficiency in a marketplace, even in the job market.
Which is an awesome thing for anyone who is buying the labour but horrible for those selling it. In fact it's so bad it historically led to the birth of Communism due to unbearable conditions. Sane countries avoided revolution by deliberately introducing inefficiencies - such as labour unions - which forced employee profits up to the point where they could live. The US, on the other hand, uses easy access to credit to hide the truth. But the problem is, debt can't grow forever. As it reaches its limits, both economy and social stability in general deteriorate. The vast majority of people simply can't afford anything.
The US is trying to compensate that problem, in turn, by blaming indebted people for being "irresponsible", when in truth they've done nothing wrong. They simply had the bad luck of being born in a "market liberal" country and believing the lies they were told. Perhaps they could had faced the ugly truth earlier, but in any case the sheer mass of debt build up is forcing the issue now. It'll be interesting to see if US can introduce the necessary inefficiencies to its job market before the smoldering anger passes the tipping point and the country goes up in flames. Judging by comments like yours repeating the frankly stupid propaganda, and the continued arming of the police with military gear, which is odd if the nation doesn't expect to use them in military-style missions against its own population, I'd wager "no".
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I'm pretty sure the "regulation is good" crowd are only talking about good regulations.
Maybe you are that way, in which case I applaud you. I've spent too much time trying to get people to admit that there are some regulations that we should get rid of. It's rather annoying.
The worst is when two of those people get in an argument and say, "we need more regulation!" "no, we need less regulation!" and you're sitting there watching, thinking, "hey, how about considering each piece of regulation individually? Because chances are we need more good regulation, and to get rid of bad regulations."
Or another one that is kind of funny, when someone says, "we need to regulate that industry." ok, but what specific regulations are going to make a difference? It's especially funny when they say it about an industry like banking or telecom, that is already highly regulated. Changing the raw number of regulations isn't going to do much there, because there are tons of them. Specifics matter.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Strictly speaking, I don't need a PC to stay alive and capable of working. That means the PC is a luxury; I have one because at some point of my life, I had spare income. That, in turn, is an inefficiency - I could had undercut other workers by asking for less. So, if you advocate a perfectly efficient job market yet have anything you could give up without dying, you either are a hypocrite or don't know what "economic efficiency" means.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
proper training and licensing of drivers
In the two major cities that I've lived in (in the U.S.), cab drivers are hands down the worst drivers on the road. Usually they didn't grow up in the U.S. and therefore don't drive the same. America has its faults, but we drive comparatively well compared to the rest of the world.
An interesting anecdote from a friend of mine who moved here from South America told me how he was amazed how everyone here follows the rules. He observed a thug-looking fellow bellowing loud music and smoking a joint in his car, with the implication that he probably was a person who committed crimes, but he still stopped at the stop sign.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
1) Do you really want two-ton land missiles driven by desperate people who are driven to cut corners to stay competitive?
We already have those. They're called taxi drivers.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Strictly speaking, I don't need a PC to stay alive and capable of working. That means the PC is a luxury; I have one because at some point of my life, I had spare income. That, in turn, is an inefficiency - I could had undercut other workers by asking for less.
Sure, if your only goal is efficiency. But if it is, you're boring.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You're the one who claimed any inefficiency means "no progress". So I guess I'm arguing with a boring troll. Bye.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You're the one who claimed any inefficiency means "no progress".
I did not use the words efficiency or efficiency. You might want to work on your reading ability. It's not able, and you're not reading.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You're just confirming what I wrote. You've done everything you're supposed to, working hard to raise capital, running your own business. And the result is that you aren't even a millionaire, let alone a billionaire, and you're still working harder than your employees, not relaxing on your yacht like the actual rich people are.
Your post confirms only that you still have the dream: If only you keep on working hard, eventually you'll become rich. But you won't. The best you can hope for is a comfortable retirement with the hope that you'll still be healthy enough to enjoy it. Rather less than the American Dream promises.
Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Jobs, etc. Millions of people got rich
That's a handful of people, not millions. And they achieved because they were born with unusual talents. And the American Dream doesn't warn that you need to have unusual talents. It's lie is that the average person can be rich just by working hard.
Furthermore quoting those few big names and implying that that means the American Dream is a valid approach is no more valid that quoting some lottery winners and saying that means buying lottery tickets is a good idea. It's cherry picking the winners. The change of being one of the winners is incredibly small in either case.
Running a business is a lifestyle decision, not a way to become rich. Unless you are already rich or have an unusual talent.
So is flamebait.
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
Obviously, you meant "compared to 3rd world countries", because when you compare the US to other 1st world countries, it does pretty poorly. Canada, most of Europe, even the Czech Republic has fewer road fatalities (per car) than the US.