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."
The Strip's monorail could trivially have extended to the airport, but that plan was nixed in order to preserve the taxis' revenue stream. What a crock.
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.
...in the taxi market, which is why we have regulation today.
And we've already seen how psychopathically Uber is willing to behave, for the avoidance of doubt.
Yeah, the first hit's always cheap. Do Americans have history classes in school?
Do Americans have history classes in school?
Yes, I can see eager young minds salivating at the thought of learning more about the exciting history of taxi regulation in the US. Come on, man; nobody in the nerderati even knew about taxi regulations until we started talking about Uber. Everyone's an expert on whatever topic they Google about.
Apparently not. But I am American, and I understand the problem here.
What bothers me isn't the lack of an understanding of history but rather a lack of understanding about civics.
Regulations can suck, but they don't -have- to.
If the regulation sucks, reform the regulations. Don't throw a huge hissy fit and shit the bed out of spite.
There's so much entitled Valley logic in the business model at Uber that it's hideously disturbing,
(Not to mention the whole "let's get a PI on a journalist who didn't like us" thing)
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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
Sorry I travel 2 sometimes 3 times a month to Vegas and I have to say outside of NYC it's the biggest taxi racket out there. Because of the terminal locations, it's a guaranteed $10 sometimes $15 bucks before you even get to the Strip because of the circuitous routing and roads. One time I had a driver "miss" the airport exit and then had to argue with him over the extra $13 bucks on the meter because of his mistake. So now I rent cars when I go there and again, Vegas leads this category in stupidity. Hike to the Rental Car Shuttle Bus, ride for 10 minutes, more lines, more hassle and oh yeah nice "Franchise" fees on top of "Airport Taxes" to pile onto the car. Still, it's better than a taxi there.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Just make it high enough that the planes can go under it. :-D
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
I've not heard of a single case of an Uber or Lyft ride going terribly wrong.
I guess it depends on your definition of "terribly wrong".
Uber Suspends Driver Accused of Sexual Assault (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Police-Make-Arrest-After-Woman-Accuses-Uber-Driver-of-Assault-268755481.html)
Uber driver accused of hammer attack on S.F. rider (http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Uber-driver-accused-of-hammer-attack-on-San-5783495.php)
Uber Driver Arrested For Allegedly Kidnapping California Woman (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/04/uber-driver-kidnapping-los-angeles_n_5442676.html)
Florida Uber driver says he grabbed customer’s breast because she wasn’t wearing a bra (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-uber-driver-grabs-female-passenger-breast-cops-article-1.1953167)
And then there's The Ten Worst Uber Horror Stories (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/19/the-ten-worst-uber-horror-stories.html)
Well, taxis have their own horror stories, including at least one serial killer.
Sexual assault is only a click away (googled "taxi driver assault" and skipped the advertisement)
Grabbing the breasts is only ONE of the things this taxi driver did...
kidnap and rape
But I understand your rebuttal of somebody saying they've never heard of a ride gone bad with Uber. Personally, I think the important part would be rate at which things go wrong(and horribly wrong).
I don't read AC A human right
Yes. It's called rugby.