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.
"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.
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.
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....
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.'"
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."