Slashdot Mirror
A Backhanded Defense of Las Vegas' Taxi Regulation
At Medium.com, Blake Ross takes a tongue-in-cheek look at the consumer protections that exist courtesy of the the Nevada Taxicab Authority, which (putting it mildly) seem to be rather more friendly to the existing taxi businesses in Las Vegas than they are to any disgruntled riders. By contrast with Uber (just booted from Las Vegas), Ross points out that the Taxicab Authority relies on antiquated complaint forms, random police checks, overlooked airport signs, and expensive tracking devices. Nonethess, says Ross, "I stand with Nevada and say—leave this to the pros."
But it's got fuck-all to do with anything nerdy I can think of. Medium.com is covering this well. Let them handle it.
I go to Vegas quite a bit, and every taxi driver that I spoke with during the monorail era (when they were talking about or actually extending it) was for it going to the airport. They make more money the more time cabs are occupied, and just going back and forth between the strip and the airport meant waiting in one line or other a great deal of the time. It's much better to take one $50 fare in an hour than two $20 fares. I don't know if the various companies' bottom line would have been affected - probably so, but there would be more cabs available (and thus more revenue) from the strip hotels at peak times (some times it takes quite a while to get a cab) if the monorail extended to the airport.
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
At certain times (generally Friday after rush hour to midnight and Saturday evenings/nights), it is faster and probably cheaper to take the highway to strip hotels on the west side of the strip (it's easier to get to the east side strip hotels going the back way). Anytime you cross (or God forbid have to travel on) the strip in traffic, it adds quite a bit of time/money to your journey. Some west side hotels are inconvenient from any route, though (Monte Carlo and Mirage, and to a slightly lesser extent, Caesar's, immediately come to mind).
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
http://valleywag.gawker.com/an...
There have been allegations of sexual assault and kidnapping, both of which aren't particularly good news. Uber's early responses were poor (e.g. not doing anything), but the most recent sexual assault has resulted in a suspended driver.
I agree that taxi lobbying has been disturbingly effective over time, resulting in diminished service quality, high prices, and licensing conditions that favor taxi dispatch companies rather than taxi drivers. These artificially restricted markets have effectively created environments ripe for disruptive alternatives.
That said, what Uber is doing with Uber X is typically illegal. For instance, in California, vehicles transporting fewer than 15 passengers one-way on a hire basis are required to file for a TCP P permit. The filing fee is $1000, and renewal is $100 every three years. Additional liability insurance (typically for $750k for Uber-type vehicles) is also required, as is controlled substance testing (drug, alcohol).
So when you got in Uber Black cars back in the early days (when that was the only type of Uber), you hopped into the vehicle of a state-licensed driver with an investment in the profession. These days, when you hop into an Uber X, it's a less consistent experience. Sometimes it's a lost out-of-towner. Sometimes there are groceries in the trunk (not a joke). Sometimes the drivers are dangerously sleepy/incompetent/distracted.
Oddly, one impact I've noticed in Uber X cities is that the Uber Black drivers have toned down the limo aspect. Most Uber Black drivers that I encounter don't wear suits, supply water or mints, help with bags, or make an effort to stop accurately. The overwhelming majority of drivers that I talk with have dropped non-uber commitments (e.g. airport runs for known contacts), so it's probably just part of the evolution of the service.
Back on point, the "entitled Valley logic" point is, at the very least, founded in the evidence of a company knowingly profiting from poor enforcement of local/regional laws and deferral of responsibility to "private contractors" (stretching the envelope of the IRS definition of a contractor).
Code first and ask lawyers later (or never) is more the hallmark of San Francisco than the Valley/South-bay, but it feels like a fair point. I'm a fan of Uber, but I can take a reasoned view of the organization and its actions.
So, a Stanford educated computer scientist notes that the Nevada Taxicab Authority is corrupt in a gambling town created by mobsters? We didn't realize this until Uber was asked to leave? I've been to Vegas many times for both business and, um, pleasure (but not the kind you're thinking of). I remember that the taxis and shuttles were cash only and a mob operation based on the prices. My advice is to skip Las Vegas. Convince people that Las Vegas is not the place to go on vacation unless your name is Vinny and you work for a privately held "family" business (if you know what I mean). If you have to go to Vegas, then rent a car.
May the force be with you.
Isn't this simple? You have two people. A driver. A passenger. The driver wants to drive the passenger from A to B and the passenenger wants to pay the driver. What moral right does anyone have to prevent them from entering into their own contract? The state claims safety yet the state doesn't seem to care if I climb mountains which is statistically far riskier. We live in a bizzar kafkaesque disytopia when people are regulating just for the sake of having regulation jobs. Even if Uber is not safe isn't it up to the consumer to decide how much risk to take?