It's people with special needs that are being protected. The business is not being protected, it's just being held to a standard where people with special requirements are left with a service they can use.
Right but anyone can go buy a medallion provided there is one available to buy. There is nothing barring new companies from buying a medallion except for the fact that there is a hard cap on how many exist. You're almost trying to make it seem like these companies can keep others from buying them somehow. It's to keep too many vehicles from being on the road. If it wasn't a problem for there to be unlimited cars on the road in the first place, then there wouldn't be a medallion system.
A monopoly is one company operating in an industry. You really need to stop using inaccurate terminology, it really dilutes the point you are trying to make.
Will the Uber app tell me the last time the driver had a complete service on his/her vehicle? Because if I can go in the app and it indicates 'This driver is certified for safe driving as of last week by garage X' then fine. Otherwise you at least need regulations to keep the cars safe.
No, they will still drive for Uber. People are desperate, obviously. The point is that no one is going to find a $12K vehicle that lasts 130,000 miles so no one is making that $13/hr. Uber is just a bottom feeder that is taking advantage of people who have no other way of making an income. The government is trying to make sure companies treat their workers fairly but apparently Uber has worked around that.
How do taxis not meet people's needs? People need a vehicle to be waiting at airports and hotels, people need safety, some of these people are physically disabled and need that as well. Many people are in the middle of nowhere but still need a ride. These are things that the taxi service provides that Uber does not.
My kids found out they enjoyed a board game that they don't make any more. We looked on eBay and people with complete sets were selling it for $80. Should I be ranting and raving that something in limited supply costs more? It's my choice whether I want to pay that much money or not, just as a taxi driver can choose to buy the asking price for a medallion or not. Many will partner with someone, or just drive for someone who does have a license. It's just a business decision, same as any other.
People keep saying that, yet obviously there cannot be too many cars on the road. Also, you want the drivers to actually have some profit potental. This is something that is not currently happening with Uber. There was recently an independent analysis and an Uber driver will make $13 an hour *IF* they only pay $12,000 for their vehicle and it lasts 130,000 miles. That's pretty difficult circumstances to operate in.
First of all, the taxi industry isn't a monopoly, it's just a regulated market. There are many companies that participate in the market. Also, regulated markets are all over the place and nothing new. Restaurants, drugs, produce, any business that deals with the public, all regulated. So then you need to look into the reasons why those regulations exist, mainly because open markets have been tried and ended up unfair or not working in some way, so they apply regulation. Why do taxis have medallions? Because there were too many cars without them and it gave the corporations all the power because no driver could actually make money. From what I've heard of Uber drivers, once vehicle costs are considered the lack of income is being realized again.
Someone has to pay for the extra services that no driving service really wants to support. There are many situations where people are subsidized for things like taxis if they have a need and cannot afford.
Ok so I can go to the nearest hotel and find uber cars waiting just like I can with a taxi? What about my aunt who is physically handicapped, how many Uber cars are fitted with special equipment for her?
So if the public doesn't get the service they need that's ok with you? We're not just talking about a service that works for the average able-bodied person. We're talking about a service that works for everyone.
No it's like taxing coal to subsidize wind. You have more control over coal so it's more like a taxi service. Wind goes where it goes so it is more like Uber.
So if you invested $500K buying shares in the stock market you wouldn't mind if the company you bought shares for turned them into paper and sold them to someone else?
What's bullshit is a company being able to come in and cut all corners when those corners were put there because it's what makes a service equally available for everyone. Taxi services are part of the overall transportation plan for the city. Uber doesn't want to be part of the plan, they just want to make money. That's why there needs to be an equalization.
To me it seems easier for Uber just to do the work required to fulfill a cities needs like the taxi services do. Contract some drivers to wait around like the taxis do, force them to go anywhere the fares need to go, have some cars that are up to taxi standards and regulation, and have a certain number of cars for the physically disabled. Then the whole issue goes away.
Taxi's play nice with what people in a city need, and that incurs some extra cost. Uber doesn't play nice with what cities need, this allows them to run cheaply. The who have to be balanced or the one that doesn't play nice will just run the others out of the city.
Slashdot Mirror
The rules aren't antiquated. As a driver I am every bit as interested of having room on the road to drive as drivers were 30 years ago.
It's people with special needs that are being protected. The business is not being protected, it's just being held to a standard where people with special requirements are left with a service they can use.
Right but anyone can go buy a medallion provided there is one available to buy. There is nothing barring new companies from buying a medallion except for the fact that there is a hard cap on how many exist. You're almost trying to make it seem like these companies can keep others from buying them somehow. It's to keep too many vehicles from being on the road. If it wasn't a problem for there to be unlimited cars on the road in the first place, then there wouldn't be a medallion system.
A monopoly is one company operating in an industry. You really need to stop using inaccurate terminology, it really dilutes the point you are trying to make.
Will the Uber app tell me the last time the driver had a complete service on his/her vehicle? Because if I can go in the app and it indicates 'This driver is certified for safe driving as of last week by garage X' then fine. Otherwise you at least need regulations to keep the cars safe.
Yes I'm sure in 20 years when taxi services are gone and all Uber cars are automated they'll still be smelling like flowers.
No, they will still drive for Uber. People are desperate, obviously. The point is that no one is going to find a $12K vehicle that lasts 130,000 miles so no one is making that $13/hr. Uber is just a bottom feeder that is taking advantage of people who have no other way of making an income. The government is trying to make sure companies treat their workers fairly but apparently Uber has worked around that.
How do taxis not meet people's needs? People need a vehicle to be waiting at airports and hotels, people need safety, some of these people are physically disabled and need that as well. Many people are in the middle of nowhere but still need a ride. These are things that the taxi service provides that Uber does not.
My kids found out they enjoyed a board game that they don't make any more. We looked on eBay and people with complete sets were selling it for $80. Should I be ranting and raving that something in limited supply costs more? It's my choice whether I want to pay that much money or not, just as a taxi driver can choose to buy the asking price for a medallion or not. Many will partner with someone, or just drive for someone who does have a license. It's just a business decision, same as any other.
People keep saying that, yet obviously there cannot be too many cars on the road. Also, you want the drivers to actually have some profit potental. This is something that is not currently happening with Uber. There was recently an independent analysis and an Uber driver will make $13 an hour *IF* they only pay $12,000 for their vehicle and it lasts 130,000 miles. That's pretty difficult circumstances to operate in.
First of all, the taxi industry isn't a monopoly, it's just a regulated market. There are many companies that participate in the market. Also, regulated markets are all over the place and nothing new. Restaurants, drugs, produce, any business that deals with the public, all regulated. So then you need to look into the reasons why those regulations exist, mainly because open markets have been tried and ended up unfair or not working in some way, so they apply regulation. Why do taxis have medallions? Because there were too many cars without them and it gave the corporations all the power because no driver could actually make money. From what I've heard of Uber drivers, once vehicle costs are considered the lack of income is being realized again.
Well wind hasn't replaced coal adequately yet so I guess in that way wind is like Uber as well.
Someone has to pay for the extra services that no driving service really wants to support. There are many situations where people are subsidized for things like taxis if they have a need and cannot afford.
Apparently you missed the article about Uber claiming they will be self driving in 5 years.
Before there were medallions there was so much vehicle congestion it was causing accidents.
Ok so I can go to the nearest hotel and find uber cars waiting just like I can with a taxi? What about my aunt who is physically handicapped, how many Uber cars are fitted with special equipment for her?
I'm going to make an app with a big picture of a thumb, because apparently an app is all it takes to make these things legal.
So if the public doesn't get the service they need that's ok with you? We're not just talking about a service that works for the average able-bodied person. We're talking about a service that works for everyone.
Damn cities for wanting transportation services that work for everyone equally! DAMN THEM!
No it's like taxing coal to subsidize wind. You have more control over coal so it's more like a taxi service. Wind goes where it goes so it is more like Uber.
So if you invested $500K buying shares in the stock market you wouldn't mind if the company you bought shares for turned them into paper and sold them to someone else?
What's bullshit is a company being able to come in and cut all corners when those corners were put there because it's what makes a service equally available for everyone. Taxi services are part of the overall transportation plan for the city. Uber doesn't want to be part of the plan, they just want to make money. That's why there needs to be an equalization.
To me it seems easier for Uber just to do the work required to fulfill a cities needs like the taxi services do. Contract some drivers to wait around like the taxis do, force them to go anywhere the fares need to go, have some cars that are up to taxi standards and regulation, and have a certain number of cars for the physically disabled. Then the whole issue goes away.
Taxi's play nice with what people in a city need, and that incurs some extra cost. Uber doesn't play nice with what cities need, this allows them to run cheaply. The who have to be balanced or the one that doesn't play nice will just run the others out of the city.
And they have to provide services for physically disabled in a lot of areas.