Slashdot Mirror
Arro Taxi App Arrives In NYC As 'Best Hope' Against Uber
An anonymous reader writes with a report at The Stack that "New York City cabs have begun testing a new app-based taxi system in an attempt to win back customers lost to Uber and Lyft." The app is called Arro, and is being trialled in about 7,000 New York cabs. It sticks with metered prices, rather than the demand-based price increases that Uber institutes for times of peak demand. With so many cabs on the road already, the makers boast that Arro will outpace Uber soon. At least based on my limited experience with each, real competition with Uber or Lyft would require some seminars on good customer service.
So this Japanese guy arrives at the airport, jumps in a taxi, smiles at the driver and says ...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I suggest we confuse the primary Uber benefits with the electronic dispatch system, rather than showing up when you've made a commitment to show up, the lower prices Uber charges on average, the cleaner, newer vehicles, ad the pleasant drivers who have to be pleasant because there's a feedback system which loses them referrals, whereas a taxi driver with a medallion can't really be fired without losing the medallion.
It must be the app, right folks? Not all the other things?
The whole reason I use Uber is to find a driver with a clean car, clean clothes, good local language, good knowledge of the city, good driving skills, sane metering device, known rates and acceptable behavior. Mutual ratings and mutual GPS control in Uber make wonders. Our local taxi companies (Sofia, Bulgaria) use some forms of internet service for a decade but still struggle with the above basic customer needs.
" real competition with Uber or Lyft would require some seminars on good customer service."
And a user driven feedback and rating system. It kills rude and poor performance by design.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Given that drivers are rated by Uber and thus have a stronger incentive for service (especially UberX) why can't they maintain higher service?
"real competition with Uber or Lyft would require some seminars on good customer service. " And basic hygiene.
There is no good reason to believe that were Uber holding to a static market it would be losing money: that is the Uber is losing money on providing the service. Every indication I've seen is that Uber's losses are growth related. Where would Uber be losing money on a static market?
Driver churn. Uber is pretty much stuck with always doing heavy recruitment incentives and marketing campaigns Those are both really expensive and will become even more so since they likely have likely already pulled the low-hanging fruit in most markets.
Because ten years down the road after Uber puts taxis out of business, there is no longer any incentive to remain clean or maintained. Now everyone is stuck with a crappy service more reminiscent of why regulations were put in place in the beginning.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I find it real funny that you people don't think the rating system can be gamed.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Try getting one in the rain sometime.
No sir I dont like it.
the lower prices Uber charges on average
This may be a fair point. People will forgo a lot if stuff is cheaper. I'm not sure whether it is cheaper in all places where it is popular though, so I dare not conclude anything here.
because there's a feedback system
This may also be it. Taxi's in my country are generally very clean, very recent Mercedes Benzes, but when you take/order one, you don't have the faintest clue whether the driver drives like a moron (actually, you sort of do, because many of them do so). Even entire taxi companies aren't commonly or easily compared in quality (to the extent that you even have a choice).
But I have to say that I've found the process of arranging a taxi very cumbersome almost every time. Calling them on the phone, explaining where you are, where you have to go (possibly in a foreign language) or finding a place where taxis are/hailing them while kind of trying to ascertain whether (or accepting that) they are going to suck is just terrible.
Personally, given the choice of taking a regular taxi using an app that allowed me to arrange the ride or going via Uber, I would probably choose the regular taxi. In my country at least. In a different country I'd have to weigh whether I'd trust the country's (public) regulations on the taxi industry more than Uber's (private) 'regulations' of its drivers.
If the regular taxi app had a reliable feedback system (and the price wouldn't be ridiculous), it would be regular taxis for me, hands down.
I give his mom short rides over and over, and I've got a great rating!
You are very confused about how competition works in the real world. No company ever comes in spending more, whether it be on cleanliness or safety. Regulation is the only way to prevent a race to the bottom.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
No, by giving tourists too-long rides over and over, but being very polite about it :D.
Of course it can be gamed. Uber is the gamification of taxi services. Everything is intended to be gamed. And the easiest way of gaming the driver ratings? By actually giving a good service and being polite. It costs nothing.
Of course be an asshole to real customers and pay accomplices to rate you. But that would cost you money. Poor gaming strategy.
Or you could only pay for cosmetic improvement to your vehicle but never any safety improvement. That would be the best game of all because people would rate you highly and it would save you money. Either way it is a loosing game for the customer, who will lose more as the game goes on. The only thing the customer gets is saving $5 or $10 per ride, which isn't really winning in the end.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Why would Uber's driver churn be any worse than other taxi firms? Uber is very attractive in that you don't have a boss telling you what to do or bawling you out, and you can pick your own hours, without even having to choose ahead of time.
Why would Uber's driver churn be any worse than other taxi firms? Uber is very attractive in that you don't have a boss telling you what to do or bawling you out, and you can pick your own hours, without even having to choose ahead of time.
Or ever having to worry about being made redundant through automation!
Oh, wait...
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"Cabs, on the other hand, can be identified by their colour. You can just hail one."
From your spelling, I'm assuming you're not a New Yorker. Yes, the protected medallion cab companies want everyone to stand outside in the rain, vainly screaming "Taxi!" like people in a 1935 George Raft movie.
But now that they are losing the ability to bully customers into using them exclusively, there is the "threat" as they call it, of competition. Instead of being part of that damp crowd you could be reserving a cab with an app while still in the comfort of the restaurant. If the app is well written, it will tell you when to go outside and meet your cab. No need for that picturesquely unruly crowd. And you will now be able to get a cab even if you're black.
Uber is making its money from not paying what any legitimate taxi driver must pay or any taxi corporation must pay to meet the regulations and obligations. In short, Uber is making its money by cheating on the free market. Should they have to incure the same costs as the regular taxi industry as a whole you would be legitimated to talk about free market. But they just don't. Making money by cheating is easy until you get caught. Now, they are lobbying to evade the rules and regulations.
The regulations exists because otherwise nobody will enter the market in first place. They are there to ensure a decent revenue to the taxi driver and make this job appealing enough so there is enough taxis available for the citizen when they need one.
Achille Talon
Hop!
In fact, you confuse anarchy with free market.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Well, the app does help a great deal, because it's far more convenient, immediate and useful than trying to hail a cab or, heavens forbid, calling their horrible mess of a dispatch service. It's also the first step towards having Uber's other features, like driver ratings (which could theoretically happen with taxis, though a huge amount of drivers would probably fight against that). Newer/cleaner vehicles and pricing are the two things I don't see changing anytime soon though.
Great theory. But in practice what parent said is correct: uber drivers have about 100x better service than taxi drivers. By the way, many taxi drivers are independent contractors and pay the taxi company for use of the car and medallion. The difference is decades of monopoly has slowly turned normal human behavior where the customer might actually matter into a game of purely maxing profit per mile, considering the chance of picking up a fare for the taxi's return trip, as if they are uship drivers moving cargo.
Uber is making its money from not paying what any legitimate taxi driver must pay or any taxi corporation must pay to meet the regulations and obligations. In short, Uber is making its money by cheating on the free market. Should they have to incure the same costs as the regular taxi industry as a whole you would be legitimated to talk about free market. But they just don't. Making money by cheating is easy until you get caught. Now, they are lobbying to evade the rules and regulations.
Are they cheating or are they choosing to not participate in an artificially restricted market by creating an alternative?
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
There was already an app called "Hailo" that tried using regular taxis, but summoned with an app like Uber/Lyft. It sucked. I tried it several times here in Atlanta and all it did was confirm how totally abysmal is taxi service here. Three times I tried using a typical ride that I make with Uber. All three times were a lesson in futility. Average Uber response time is 4 minutes. Shortest Hailo time to get a taxi was 12 minutes, with the other two approaching 20 minutes. Cost of Uber rides was always about $6.50. Lowest Hailo cost was $11, and the driver was pissed that I didn't tip him. Sorry, you deliver inferior service, you lose.
> The whole reason I use Uber is to find a driver with a clean car, clean clothes, good local language, good knowledge of the city, good driving skills, sane metering device, known rates and acceptable behavior.
I've been dealing with those services in an urban are lately. Good luck with "driving skills", "local language", and "knowledge of the city". I've nothing personal against Lyft or Uber's attempts to modernize and improve cab services, but they _are_ cab services. And as their numbers grow, they're running into the same problems with more employees and less skilled drivers that the cab companies do. The "real cab companies" should have been willing to invest in this approach a decade ago when cell phones and geo-locatoin first started becoming useful about 10 years ago.
Or you could only pay for cosmetic improvement to your vehicle but never any safety improvement.
This sounds clever at first but is incredibly stupid once you mull over what you are saying.
What "safety improvements" would you pay for? Roll bars? Four point harnesses? Fir extinguishers in the main cabin? Come on.
Uber inspects the car to be used to see if it passes muster - any car made in the last ten years will already be really safe, with no improvements to be made that could improve safety.
The things that degrade on cars over time are mostly cosmetic - body wear, interior cleanliness. They are what are ESPECIALLY degraded in "real" cabs.
The few aspects of cars that do degrade over time (tires, brakes) are checked by the state in yearly safety inspections anyway so it's not like letting them go is an option - but you've forgotten the driver has a powerful motivator to keep the car safe, because they are the ones who are going to spend far more time in it than any one passenger.... why would a driver want to risk his own life to save a few $?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
After the app is released, people will flock to the cab app during peak hours because of the cheaper pricing.
That also means there will be few cabs to be found... the cabs they do find will still be the same old foul NYC cabs we all know and .
So the end user experience for most people will be cheaper cabs they can't have, vs. Uber cars they can - with the unreliable access to cabs demonstrated, people will just go back to uber and ignore the cab app exists.
People forget that surge pricing exists not just for drivers, but also passengers. You may not like the pricing but you do like having a ride available on demand...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If by artificially restricted, you mean a market in which everyone can make a fair product and still meet the public's requirement for availability and safety, then yes you are correct. They are creating an alternative to a safe and fair market.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Commercial insurance, commercial licenses, safety shields, fresh brakes, steering controls, suspension, and control arms that are repaired as opposed to being stuffed with grease. In my locale, they have strobes on top of all the taxis to signal an emergency to other vehicles which seems like a real good idea.
You think brakes on a vehicle that is driven 24/7 are going to be good checked once a year? lol. Does uber even control the time the car spends on the road and how often it is inspected? For all I know, three uber drivers could share the same vehicle and have it going all the time. Passenger vehicles just aren't made for that without very careful care.
Why would an Uber driver not do these things? Money and denial are powerful motivators. If someone can't get it together enough to get a regular job, I have no reason to think they will have money left over at the end of the month for maintenance that isn't affecting their ratings.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
People complain about taxi's denying riders because they are only taking short trips that aren't worth it.. How does Uber encourage drivers to take less profitable fares? What keeps Uber drivers from flocking to an area where they make more fare and totally ignoring areas where the fare is lower?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
There is no small number of traditional cab drivers who are driving for Uber and Lyft.
The driver and car may vary, but it's the app and response time that makes it convenient for the user.
My Lyft ride on Thursday in Santa Clara arrived 20 seconds after tapping the request button.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Yes. I too am confident that without regulation we'd all be stuck driving Yugos to work, living in slumlord-owned apartment blocks which leak when it rains and catch fire nightly, and subsisting on flavorless gruel. Competition could never bring us safe cars, pleasant housing, organic food, or usable taxi services, and people running away from the disaster scene that we call the regulated taxi industry are clearly insane or berserk.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Again the Uber shills are coming out.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I can't wait for Uber Air! So what if your pilot only has 100 flight hours instead of 1000. So what if the planes aren't regulated in their maintenance. Look how cheap it is!
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Have you considered that maybe technology has outpaced the regulations in a taxi industry that has become terminally moribund? This is quite clearly what has happened, and everything could be easily addressed simply by updating the pertinent regulations that govern the industry, but that will NEVER happen, at least not in time to accomplish anything meaningful. Somehow, through some mutant form of regulatory capture, the taxicab business in most urban areas has become a dysfunctional chimeric melding of regulator and regulated, a single conjoined entity that is completely incapable of forward movement, forward thought, or in fact significant change of any kind. The sad fact is that Uber and its ilk will very likely destroy the current system entirely before any meaningful change in regulation occurs, which perhaps is a blessing because that will make it much easier to start over from scratch when the inevitable complete regulatory rewrite finally occurs. The cab companies and their regulatory pets/masters have proven incapable of providing the kind of service Uber does, and they will pay the price for their inability to adjust to the new reality. Forced rapid change in a well-established market is seldom pretty, but if you sit back and let it all play out, in a few years you'll see new cab companies working under new regulations providing new and improved services that will probably look a lot more like Uber than the old medallion taxi fleets. It's inevitable.
In other words, it's just progress, folks, nothing to see here, move along...
What customer service do Uber/Lyft provide?
Providing transport in something that does not smell like a taxi is a good start...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
People who support the creative use of technology, and gamification of work shouldn't exactly be a surprise on a technology site such as Slashdot.
Just because someone has a different view to you doesn't make them a shill.
Most of the young people I know use Uber whenever possible. They know when the car is coming. They can check driver ratings and Uber responds to route abuse. DC cabs try and filter out where you are going to do their own route optimization. Uber just shows up when you call it.
We used it in San Francisco this year for the first time. It was a very nice experience. No meter antics. No complaining that the credit card machine was out of order. (I'm looking at you NYC cabs).
With uber or lyft, you can rate your driver, and the driver can rate the customer. I have never had either service with at least 4 stars out of 5 that dont know exactly where they are going, drive safely, and get me to my destination in a reasonably clean and unsmelly car. Lower stars, not as good service. Pretty simple.
You might once in a blue moon find an anomaly to that, but I haven't experienced it and I don't know anyone else who has.
Excuse me? Because I am on a technology site, and Uber uses technology, I should overlook the fact that they are breaking fucking laws? You think it is special that they are able to come up with an idea that makes money and that they are entitled it simply because they are the first people who are such dicks that they simply don't care about the millions of people they are hurting? Only an absulute narcissist wouldn't see how this doesn't end well for anyone but uber. And they aren't even obeying the law. I can think of a dozen laws I could ignore and thereby profit from.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Because ten years down the road after Uber puts taxis out of business, there is no longer any incentive to remain clean or maintained.
Even a moment of thought would reveal how untrue that statement is, because cars with poor drivers or unsafe or unclean, would not get riders - who can see the cars rating quite plainly
Look over Fluffenmutter's history, a more obvious shill for the taxi industry I've never seen. Not once will admit a single flaw with taxis, while claiming that every flaw taxis suffer from Uber must suffer also - even though any user of Uber and Taxis knows there is simply no comparison - by ANY metric chosen, taxis are worse.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The only reason they're modernizing their business now is BECAUSE of uber. This is how it always goes with ancient services that expect to be held up regardless of their quality of service.
It always takes these "renegade" new approaches to make things that refuse to keep up with the times to adapt. And it follows the same pattern each time.
1. Original service outdates itself by refusing to make use of new technologies. And more generally with online commerce as a whole.
2. People get pissed off and "take matters into their own hands" to make a competing, modernized service.
3. Old service responds at first by ignoring it. Then by suing it. Then by "convincing" local government of how bad the new service is to force it out, usually by applying laws that normally wouldn't have applied to it, or by getting new laws written. "in the name of the public good."
4. Old service finally rolls out their own copy version of the service (competitor) they spent years fighting tooth and nail.
Same thing happened a decade ago with song downloads and digital shows.
Poor ratings take time to take effect, and their turnover is _very_ high. That may contribute to the problem where I've used them.
Not necessarily. NYC != Manhattan; there's several other boroughs which are not nearly as dense, especially Staten Island, which is positively suburban. You're not going to get a cab there standing on the corner for 30 seconds.
Yeah, these Uber-haters are making me want to vote Republican.
Except that the Republicans are the ones pushing and defending laws to ban automakers from selling direct to customers, because they hate Tesla and love the stealerships.
It's weird how the Democrats are the statists when it comes to taxis, yet are all for the free market when it comes to electric car sales, and vice-versa for the Republicans.
"Stuffed with grease"? Do you know anything about modern cars at all? You can't add grease to steering or suspension components; zerks disappeared decades ago.
You act like cabs are specially-built vehicles. They're not (the old Checker cabs have all been removed from service); they're just regular cars painted yellow (and only in some locales) with a taximeter slapped in.
If a vehicle is falling apart, you can tell pretty quickly. Most cabs I've ridden in are like this: brakes squeal, inside is dirty, etc. In the Uber cars I've used, they're in pristine shape.
And have you never heard of a state inspection? Maybe your shitty state doesn't have them, but my state requires every car to be safety inspected every year.
Or you could only pay for cosmetic improvement to your vehicle but never any safety improvement. That would be the best game of all because people would rate you highly and it would save you money.
Not sure how much repair work you've had to do on your own vehicles, but "cosmetic" (body) work is a hell of a lot more expensive than mechanical work.
Here is a better hope for the cab industry. Remove the cap on how many cars there are and introduce competitive pricing. Maybe there need to be some regulations when it comes to preventing the worst of the worst abuses but that is about it.
Then cabs will be competitive and uber will just be one of the many excellent options.
...I would probably choose the regular taxi. In my country at least. In a different country I'd have to weigh whether I'd trust the country's (public) regulations on the taxi industry more than Uber's (private) 'regulations' of its drivers.
A lot of the strong feelings, on both sides, here seems to be from Americans. I'm an American and have used both; the problem here is that there is not a single taxi in this country of 310M people which is a "generally very clean, very recent Mercedes Benz", or anything close to it. At best, you might get a reasonably clean Prius in some cities, more likely you're going to get some old POS, probably a 25-year-old Ford Crown Victoria that used to be a police cruiser and which rides like shit and reeks of smoke.
So what's the problem with that? It's allowing them to make ends meet; is that a bad thing?
When (if?) the economy improves, and the supply of drivers for Uber dries up, prices will rise so they can get more drivers. This is normal for many things when the economy improves.
What's the problem?
Many companies have recruitment costs. /. covers IT. There are plenty of IT companies paying either 20% of a year's salary for IT recruitment or paying something like 40% of the first 6 mo or more to sourcing firms. That's tens of thousands of dollars per candidate and after an expensive search.
I don't think you have the IQ to be posting here.
My post was in response to you calling someone a shill. Not any of those things you mention.
they simply don't care about the millions of people they are hurting?
You really are quite the hysteric.
Not necessarily. NYC != Manhattan; there's several other boroughs which are not nearly as dense, especially Staten Island, which is positively suburban. You're not going to get a cab there standing on the corner for 30 seconds.
You may still get a ride by standing on the corner. You'll not only get to where you're going, but may make a few bucks in the process.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
How do you know the politics of people discussing Uber/Taxis?
Well the pro-Uber people usually call the anti-Uber people "statists". There's only one group of people who use that word, and they're not on the left. The anti-Uber people usually whine about worker protections (as if taxi riders actually have any), and people concerned about those aren't on the right.
By millions of people, I mean the population of entire cities, which will need to deal with the fallout of this. Do some homework please and find out what the industry was like before regulation. People making pennies, crowds of 50 cars clogging streets in front of hotels.
Uneducated people are bound to repeat the mistakes of history I guess.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
"Inside is dirty"? Do you kick the tires too?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Hey, if you like sitting in a nasty, smelly old Crown Vic cab which likely had hundreds of arrestees bleeding and barfing in the back seat before its new life as a cab, go right ahead and knock yourself out. I'll be riding with Uber in a nice, newer Mercedes.
That Mercedes won't be so clean 10 years from now. It's not like they'll be able to sell a car, unless they lie about the fact that it was a Uber car. I suppose the odometer will give them away anyway. I take comfort in the fact that the cabs I have been in had customized washable seats and were clean. Can you say the same for your Mercedes? Are you absolutely sure no one has ever puked in it? Because if so that can't be cleaned out of a factory seat properly even if it is leather. Again, the car may look ok but is it, really?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
No, $1 million for a medallion prevents the roads from being swamped with cars, which was the case before it was legislated. Every hotel would have 50 cars swarming around them. Less congested roads means less accidents which adds to public safety.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Everything is going to be corrupt. If people weren't corrupt in every walk of life, then we would all be enjoying socialism right now.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Because you are ultimately forcing people into a McDonalds job. Where there was once a market full of people feeding their families, there is now this. And you're probably one of the people fighing against the rise in minimum wage as well.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Are you trying to be sarcastic, because what you are saying is pretty true.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Because pro-Uber people are defending the actions of a large, rich corporation in favour of the little guy and that is what Republicans are known for?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
> Uber is very attractive in that you don't have a boss telling you what to do or bawling you out, and you can pick your own hours, without even having to choose ahead of time.
Oh boo freakin hoo!
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Well the pro-Uber people usually call the anti-Uber people "statists".
No they don't.
The anti-Uber people usually whine about worker protections
Again, no, they usually go on about vehicle safety and insurance.
How is anyone being forced into a McDonald's job? They're taking the job willingly. And what are you going to do when all the taxi drivers are put out of work by driverless cars anyway? Are you going to ban those because we need to preserve all those crappy jobs? What about when McDonald's figures out how to automate cooking? Are you going to ban that too, so those people don't lose their jobs? Where does it end? Are you going to ban all automation because it makes jobs obsolete? Why not ban cars, so that we can bring back all the horse-related jobs? Are you going to ban grocery stores too, because you don't want people cooking their own food and reducing the need for restaurant workers?
You sound one of the communists who wanted to establish big factories, where on one side people built wooden boxes, then sent the finished boxes to the other side of the factory, where they were disassembled so the wood could be recycled, and the reclaimed lumber was sent back to the first side of the factory to build boxes....
If you want a make-work program, bring back the WPA. Don't force people to use workers they don't want, to do jobs that robots can do better.
>No they don't.
Yes, they do. I see it here all the fucking time.
>Again, no, they usually go on about vehicle safety and insurance.
Then they're morons. There's no way in hell a nearly new Mercedes is less safe than some 30-year-old piece-of-shit Crown Victoria. Crown Vics are notorious for being dangerous cars when rear-ended; a lot of cops died because of that. Why do you want to ride in shitty old unsafe cars instead of riding in new, well-engineered cars which top safety rankings?
That Mercedes won't be so clean 10 years from now.
So what? Uber won't let them drive a car that old.
It's not like they'll be able to sell a car, unless they lie about the fact that it was a Uber car.
First, it's their choice. I guess you're one of those people who hates it when people have freedom of choice, and wants local governments to tell them what they can and can't do.
Second, it's still a Mercedes. They have much higher resale values (even with lots of miles) than the POSes that taxi companies usually drive (except maybe Priuses, as a percentage depreciation).
Well that really convinced people.
So your position is that everyone is screwed anyway, so we might as well help it along? That's total anarchy. I'm not even sure how a person with your views could feel safe in the US economy. You actually want to rush along the depletion of jobs in the economy. Wow.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
No, my position is that we should look at better ways of managing an economy than creating make-work jobs and forcing people to use far less efficient and convenient services just to keep some people employed.
Answer me: Do you really think the government should force people to eat at restaurants, instead of making their own food? Do you think people should be forced to hire maids instead of cleaning their own homes? Because if you support keeping taxi drivers employed and banning automated cars from being used as taxis, that's exactly what you're supporting. It's no different than banning cars in 1900 so buggy-whip manufacturers and their employees can keep their jobs.
None of your examples apply. There are no laws protecting restaurants or maids jobs.. because there was not enough of a need for them. The taxi industry already didn't work without the laws in place, and a lot of people aren't convinced that the Uber style of doing business is going to rectify any of that. Let's take steps forward for the people, not steps back. Stability is good for the people and that is what regulations bring.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
So you want to stick with the shitshow that is the modern taxi industry, just because "stability is good"? WTF?
And how is there a "need" to protect taxi jobs anyway?